Hi Alieh, This KIP has evolved a lot since I last looked at it, but the changes seem well thought-out both in semantics and API. One clarifying question I have is that it looks based on the draft PR that we've narrowed the scope from any error that might take place with producing a record to Kafka, to only the ones that are thrown directly from Producer::send; is that the intended behavior here? And if so, do you have thoughts on how we might design a follow-up KIP that would catch all errors (including ones reported asynchronously instead of synchronously)? I'd like it if we could leave the door open for that without painting ourselves into too much of a corner with the API design for this KIP.
Cheers, Chris On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 6:31 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Alieh, > > it seems this KIP can just pick between a couple of tradeoffs. Adding an > overloaded `send()` as the KIP propose makes sense to me and seems to > provides the cleanest solution compare to there options we discussed. > > Given the explicit name of the passed-in option that highlights that the > option is for TX only make is pretty clear and avoids the issue of > `flush()` ambiguity. > > > Nit: We should make clear on the KIP though, that the new `send()` > overload would throw an `IllegalStateException` if TX are not used > (similar to other TX methods like initTx(), etc) > > > About the `Producer` interface, I am not sure how this was done in the > past (eg, KIP-266 added `Consumer.poll(Duration)` w/o a default > implementation), if we need a default implementation for backward > compatibility or not? If we do want to add one, I think it would be > appropriate to throw an `UnsupportedOperationException` by default, > instead of just keeping the default impl empty? > > > My points are rather minor, and should not block this KIP though. > Overall LGTM. > > > > -Matthias > > On 6/27/24 1:28 PM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > Making applications to validate every single record is not the best way, > > from an efficiency point of view. > > Moreover, between changing the behavior of the Producer in `send` and > > `commitTnx`, the former seems more reasonable and clean. > > > > Bests, > > Alieh > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:14 PM Justine Olshan > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> Hey Alieh, > >> > >> I see there are two options now. So folks will be discussing the > approaches > >> and deciding the best way forward before we vote? > >> I do think there could be a problem with the approach on commit if we > get > >> stuck on an earlier error and have more records (potentially on new > >> partitions) to commit as the current PR is implemented. > >> > >> I guess this takes us back to the question of whether the error should > be > >> cleared on send. > >> > >> (And I guess at the back of my mind, I'm wondering if there is a way we > can > >> validate the "posion pill" records application side before we even try > to > >> send them) > >> > >> Justine > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:38 PM Alieh Saeedi > <asae...@confluent.io.invalid > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Justine, > >>> > >>> I did not update the KIP with `TxnSendOption` since I thought it'd be > >>> better discussed here beforehand. > >>> right now, there are 2 PRs: > >>> - the PR that implements the current version of the KIP: > >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16332 > >>> - the POC PR that clarifies the `TxnSendOption`: > >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16465 > >>> > >>> Bests, > >>> Alieh > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:42 AM Justine Olshan > >>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey Alieh, > >>>> > >>>> I think I am a little confused. Are the 3 points above addressed by > the > >>> KIP > >>>> or did something change? The PR seems to not include this change and > >>> still > >>>> has the CommitOption as well. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Justine > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:15 PM Alieh Saeedi > >>> <asae...@confluent.io.invalid > >>>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking at the PR <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16332> > >>>>> corresponding to the KIP, there are some points worthy of mention: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) clearing the error ends up dirty/messy code in > >> `TransactionManager`. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) By clearing the error, we are actually doing an illegal transition > >>>> from > >>>>> `ABORTABLE_ERROR` to `IN_TRANSACTION` which is conceptually not > >>>> acceptable. > >>>>> This can be the root cause of some issues, with perhaps further > >> future > >>>>> changes by others. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) If the poison pill record `r1` causes a transition to the error > >>> state > >>>>> and then the next record `r2` requires adding a partition to the > >>>>> transaction, the action fails due to being in the error state. In > >> this > >>>>> case, clearing errors during `commitTnx(CLEAR_SEND_ERROR)` is too > >> late. > >>>>> However, this case can NOT be the main concern as soon as KIP-890 is > >>>> fully > >>>>> implemented. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion is to solve the problem where it arises. If the > >>> transition > >>>> to > >>>>> the error state does not happen during `send()`, we do not need to > >>> clear > >>>>> the error later. Therefore, instead of `CommitOption`, we can define > >> a > >>>>> `TxnSendOption` and prevent the `send()` method from going to the > >> error > >>>>> state in case 1) we're in a transaction and 2) the user asked for > >>>>> IGONRE_SEND_ERRORS. For more clarity, you can take a look at the POC > >> PR > >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16465>. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Alieh > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
