Hi Ismael, We can do this if we think that an external configuration is not necessary. Just wondering, is there a reason we don't want an external configuration here?
Thanks, Justine On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 12:30 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Why does this have to be an external config? We can provide an internal > mechanism to configure this, no? > > Ismael > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:22 AM Justine Olshan > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hey all, > > Quick update to this KIP. While working on the PR and tests I realized > that > > we have a hardcoded value for how often we clean up producer IDs. > Currently > > this value is 10 minutes and is defined in LogManager. > > I thought for better testing and ease of use of the new configuration, we > > should also be able to configure the cleanup interval. > > > > Here is the new configuration I'm hoping to add. I also added it to the > > KIP. > > name: producer.id.expiration.check.interval.ms > > description: The interval at which to remove producer IDs that have > expired > > due to producer.id.expiration.ms passing > > default: 600000 (10 minutes) > > valid values: [1,...] > > priority: low > > update-mode: read-only > > > > I left the default as the current hardcoded value to avoid disruptions. > If > > there are any issues with this change let me know. > > Thanks, > > Justine > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 1:40 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Awesome. Thanks Tom! > > > > > > I plan to open this KIP vote at the start of next week. > > > Thanks all for the discussion! Let me know if there is anything else. > :) > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:32 AM Tom Bentley <tbent...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Justine, > > >> > > >> That all seems reasonable to me, thanks! > > >> > > >> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 at 19:14, Justine Olshan > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Tom and Ismael, > > >> > > > >> > 1. Yes, there are definitely many ways to improve this issue and I > > plan > > >> to > > >> > write followup KIPs to address some of the larger changes. > > >> > Just wanted to get this simple fix in as a short term measure to > > prevent > > >> > issues with too many producer IDs in the cache. Stay tuned :) > > >> > > > >> > 2. I did have some offline discussion about informing the client. I > > >> think > > >> > for this specific KIP the default behavior in practice should not > > change > > >> > enough to require this information to go back to the client. In > other > > >> > words, a reasonable configuration should not regress behavior. > > However, > > >> > with the further changes I mention in 1, perhaps this is something > we > > >> want > > >> > to do. And yes -- unfortunately the current state of Kafka is no > > longer > > >> > totally consistent with KIP-98. This is something we probably want > to > > >> > clarify in the future. > > >> > > > >> > 3. I will update the config to mention it is not dynamic. I think > > since > > >> the > > >> > transactional id configuration is read-only, this should be too. > > >> > > > >> > 4. I can update this wording. > > >> > > > >> > 5. I think there are definitely benefits to the name ` > > >> > idempotent.pid.expiration.ms` but there are other ways this could > > cause > > >> > confusion. And to be clear -- the configuration can expire a > producer > > ID > > >> > for a transactional producer as long as there isn't an ongoing > > >> transaction. > > >> > > > >> > Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for taking a look! > > >> > > > >> > Justine > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:30 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Regarding 1, more can certainly be done, but I think it would be > > >> > > complementary. As such, I think this KIP stands on its own and > > >> additional > > >> > > improvements can be handled via future KIPs (unless Justine wants > to > > >> > > combine things, of course). > > >> > > > > >> > > Ismael > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:12 AM Tom Bentley <tbent...@redhat.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Justine, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the KIP! I can see that this is a pragmatic attempt > to > > >> > > address a > > >> > > > nasty problem. I have a few questions: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. The KIP makes the problem significantly harder to trigger, > but > > >> > doesn't > > >> > > > eliminate it entirely. How confident are you that it will be > > >> sufficient > > >> > > in > > >> > > > practice? We can point to applications which are creating > > idempotent > > >> > > > producers at a high rate and say they're broken, but that > doesn't > > do > > >> > > > anything to defend the broker from an interaction pattern that > > >> differs > > >> > > only > > >> > > > in rate from a "good application". Did you consider a new quota > to > > >> > limit > > >> > > > the rate at which a (principal, clientId) can allocate new PIDs? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. The KIP contains this sentence: "when an idempotent > producer’s > > ID > > >> > > > expires, it silently loses its idempotency guarantees." That's > at > > >> odds > > >> > > with > > >> > > > my reading of "PID expiration" in the KIP-98 design[1], but it > > does > > >> > seem > > >> > > > consistent with a (brief!) look at the code. I accept that the > > risk > > >> > > should > > >> > > > be minimal so long as the expiration time is > the producer's > > >> delivery > > >> > > > timeout, but it would still be nice if we could detect this > > >> situation > > >> > and > > >> > > > return an error to the client. Is there a reason for the > apparent > > >> > > deviation > > >> > > > from KIP-98 (or am I misreading the code?) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. Could the KIP be explicit on whether the new config will be > > >> > > dynamically > > >> > > > changeable? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 4. The description of producer.id.expiration.ms mentions the > > >> > > > ProducerStateManager, which will mean nothing to a normal user. > We > > >> > could > > >> > > > probably change it to "a topic partition leader" without loss of > > >> > meaning. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 5. The description also says "Producer IDs will not expire > while a > > >> > > > transaction associated to them is still ongoing." To me this > > >> suggests > > >> > > that > > >> > > > a more intuitive name for this config (from the user PoV) would > > >> include > > >> > > > "idempotent", since it does not cover the transactional case. (I > > >> would > > >> > > > suggest "idempotent.pid.expiration.ms" (c.f. > > >> > > > transactional.id.expiration.ms), > > >> > > > but the distinction between "id" and "pid" is easily missed–even > > if > > >> > it's > > >> > > > technically correct–so I'm not sure it's better than what you're > > >> > > > proposing). I only mention it in case it prompts someone else to > > >> find a > > >> > > > better name. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks again, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Tom > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [1]: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Jqy_GjUGtdXJK94XGsEIK7CP1SnQGdp2eF0wSw9ra8/edit#heading=h.loujdamc9ptj > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 22:00, Justine Olshan > > >> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I've updated the KIP to make the new minimum value 1 and > remove > > >> the > > >> > -1 > > >> > > > > configuration. > > >> > > > > I've also added the low priority to the configuration and > edited > > >> the > > >> > > > > description as Ismael mentioned. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm thinking about bringing this KIP to a vote soon! Let me > know > > >> if > > >> > > there > > >> > > > > are any other comments or questions. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > Justine > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:02 AM Jason Gustafson > > >> > > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree with Ismael that we should remove -1. I think we > tend > > to > > >> > view > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > coupling of these behaviors into a single configuration as a > > >> > mistake, > > >> > > > so > > >> > > > > > it's a little odd to keep it (even if in a weakened form). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Jason > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 7:37 AM Ismael Juma < > > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would remove -1 altogether. Two more comments: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. The current description kind of leads people towards > > >> aligning > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > config > > >> > > > > > > with delivery.timeout.ms. Is that what we want? We could > > say > > >> it > > >> > > > should > > >> > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > higher than delivery.timeout.ms but indicate that the > > >> default is > > >> > > > > usually > > >> > > > > > > fine. The main reason to reduce it would be to save > memory, > > I > > >> > > guess. > > >> > > > > > > 2. Each config has a priority, we should specify it for > this > > >> one. > > >> > > I'm > > >> > > > > > > assuming it will be "low". > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:38 PM Justine Olshan > > >> > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I've updated the KIP to include the new default of 1 day > > and > > >> > > > > > information > > >> > > > > > > > about -1 in the description of the config. > > >> > > > > > > > I wonder though if including -1 makes sense now that it > is > > >> not > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > default > > >> > > > > > > > value. Is there a benefit for manually setting -1 vs > > >> manually > > >> > > > setting > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > value that transactional.id.expiration.ms has? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Let me know your thoughts. > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > Justine > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ismael Juma < > > >> > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > +1 for having 1 day as the default and for including > > this > > >> > > change > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > release notes. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:16 AM Jason Gustafson > > >> > > > > > > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't think a major release is a requirement for a > > >> > default > > >> > > > > change > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > > what it's worth. I do appreciate that there is a > > >> preference > > >> > > for > > >> > > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > > rocking > > >> > > > > > > > > > the boat though. For a little bit of background > here, > > >> the > > >> > > > problem > > >> > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > > > have encountered in production since the idempotent > > >> > producer > > >> > > > > became > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > default is OOM errors due to huge numbers of > > producerIds > > >> > that > > >> > > > had > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > > > retained in the cache for 7 days. It is hard to > > prevent > > >> use > > >> > > > cases > > >> > > > > > > from > > >> > > > > > > > > > emerging where producers are used and discarded > > >> rapidly. We > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > > using a > > >> > > > > > > > > > lower value for sure, but it would also be nice to > > >> reduce > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > > > likelihood > > >> > > > > > > > > > for the community to see this problem. The benefit > of > > >> the > > >> > > > caching > > >> > > > > > > > > > diminishes quickly over time since it is primarily > > >> meant to > > >> > > > > handle > > >> > > > > > > > > producer > > >> > > > > > > > > > retry windows. I do not think there is much > difference > > >> > > between > > >> > > > 1 > > >> > > > > > days > > >> > > > > > > > > and 7 > > >> > > > > > > > > > days from an application perspective, but it is a > huge > > >> > > > difference > > >> > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > broker's memory usage. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > Jason > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sagar < > > >> > > > sagarmeansoc...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 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. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
