Hi Jason, Thanks for the info. I don't strongly insist on making the default to -1 for backward compatibility. If other people in the community also agree with the change, I'm good with that.
Thank you. Luke On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:35 AM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Thanks Jason, Luke, Sagar, and Kirk, > > Seems like there is still some debate over the default value. I think there > is a general consensus that we can reduce the default at some point, but > exactly when is still not clear. I do think Jason made a good point about > applications taking 1 day to retry. I am interested if there are other use > cases we didn't consider though. > > I've also updated the description to reference `delivery.timeout.ms.` I'm > not sure if we also need that config to reference this one (the > bi-directional reference Kirk mentioned). Let me know if something should > still be updated or if something is unclear. > > Thanks again, > Justine > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:46 AM Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I appreciated the background context and clarity you > > added. > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022, at 2:57 AM, Sagar wrote: > > > Thanks Justine for the KIP. I think it might be better to document the > > > correlation between the new config and delivery.timeout.ms in the > Public > > > Interfaces Description. > > > > +1. > > > > A bi-directional reference between the two configuration options would be > > great for clarity. This is especially true given that the value of ` > > producer.id.expiration.ms, when left at -1, comes from the value of > > transactional.id.expiration.ms.` > > > > Thanks! > > Kirk > > > > > > > > Also, I agree with Luke that for now setting a default to -1 should be > > > good. We can look to switch to 1 day with major release. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Sagar. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:05 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > I agree with you that we should try our best to keep backward > > > > compatibility, although our intention is to have lower producer id > > > > expiration timeout. > > > > So, I think we should keep default to -1 IMO. > > > > Maybe we change the default to 1 day in next major release (4.0)? > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Luke > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:13 AM Justine Olshan > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking a look Jason! > > > > > > > > > > I wondered if we wanted to have a smaller default but wasn't sure > > about > > > > the > > > > > compatibility story -- especially since there is the chance for > > producer > > > > > IDs to expire silently. > > > > > I do think that 1 day is fairly reasonable. If I don't hear any > > > > conflicting > > > > > opinions I can go ahead and update the default. > > > > > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:23 PM Jason Gustafson > > > > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Although I hate seeing new configurations, I > > think > > > > > this > > > > > > is a good change. Combining these timeout behaviors into a single > > > > > > configuration was definitely a mistake, but we didn't anticipate > > the > > > > > > problem with the producer id cache. I do wonder if we can make > the > > > > > default > > > > > > a bit lower to reduce the chances that users will hit the same > > memory > > > > > > issues we have seen. After decoupling this configuration from > > > > > > transactional.id.expiration.ms, the new timeout just needs to > > cover > > > > the > > > > > > longest duration that a producer might be retrying the same > Produce > > > > > > request. 7 days seems too high. Although I think it could go a > fair > > > > even > > > > > > lower, perhaps 1 day is a reasonable place to start? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Justine Olshan > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > > Thanks! I was just going to say that hopefully > > > > > > > transactional.id.expiration.ms would also be over the delivery > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > Thanks for the +1! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just took another look at the KIP, and I realize my > > > > > > question/suggestion > > > > > > > > about default values has already been addressed in the > > > > > `Compatibility` > > > > > > > > section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 on the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bill Bejeck < > bbej...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the well written KIP, this looks like it will > be a > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > addition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall the KIP looks good to me, I have one > > question/comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned that setting the `producer.id.expiration.ms` > > less > > > > > than > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > delivery timeout could lead to duplicates, which makes > > sense. To > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > avoid this situation, do we want to consider a default > value > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same as the delivery timeout? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 4:54 PM Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey all! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I'd like to start a discussion on my proposal to separate > > > > > time-based > > > > > > > > >> producer ID expiration from transactional ID expiration by > > > > > > > introducing a > > > > > > > > >> new configuration. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The KIP Is pretty small and simple, but will be helpful in > > > > > > controlling > > > > > > > > >> memory usage in brokers -- especially now that by default > > > > > producers > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> idempotent and create producer ID state. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Please take a look and leave any comments you may have! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> KIP: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-854+Separate+configuration+for+producer+ID+expiry > > > > > > > > >> JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14097 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > > > >> Justine > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
