Hi everyone, Thanks to Stanislav for answering the question! In the beginning I thought I’ve also updated the KIP based on the discussion above.
Best, Kuan-Po On 2025/02/06 18:42:29 Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > hi Stan > > thanks for sharing the details! > > to Kuan-Po > > Could you please tweak the KIP-860 according to Stan's response :) > > Best, > Chia-Ping > > Stanislav Kozlovski <stanislavkozlov...@apache.org> 於 2025年2月7日 週五 上午2:32寫道： > > > Hey Kuan-Po! > > > > First of all - thanks so much for volunteering to take the implementation > > of this KIP! > > > > When I initially proposed it, I had planned with my team in Confluent to > > have somebody else implement it as a chance to get more experience with the > > open-source project. Sadly, we never got to it. > > > > To answer your question: > > > > The idea of this KIP is to prevent the replication factor from changing, > > so it's ultimately only the size that should get checked. As mentioned - if > > the partition is NOT reassigning, then we check against > > `targetReplicaSet.size != currentReplicaSet.size`. If the partition IS > > reasigning, then we check `currentReassignmentTargetReplicaSet.size != > > newTargetReplicaSet.size` > > > > Best, > > Stan > > > > On 2025/02/05 14:46:08 Kuan Po Tseng wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > After discussing with Stanislav Kozlovski, I plan to continue > > implementing this KIP. > > > However, I have a question regarding the Validation section. > > > > > > It says, "If the targetReplicaSet of the reassignment differs from the > > current replica set > > > of the partition, an error is thrown." > > > > > > I’m wondering if the word “differs” here refers to: > > > (1) Only the targetReplicaSet size differing from the current replica > > set, or > > > (2) The targetReplicaSet as a whole differing from the current replica > > set. > > > > > > I assume it’s (2) since the KIP aims to avoid a situation where, during > > alterPartitionReassignments, the replication factor (RF) could end up > > > larger than the original RF. However, I would like to confirm if > > > my understanding is correct. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > -- > > > Best, > > > Kuan-Po > > > > > > On 2022/07/28 08:59:18 Stanislav Kozlovski wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on a proposal to help API users from > > > > inadvertently increasing the replication factor of a topic through > > > > the alter partition reassignments API. The KIP describes two fairly > > > > easy-to-hit race conditions in which this can happen. > > > > > > > > The KIP itself is pretty simple, yet has a couple of alternatives that > > can > > > > help solve the same problem. I would appreciate thoughts from the > > community > > > > on how you think we should proceed, and whether the proposal makes > > sense in > > > > the first place. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > KIP: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-860%3A+Add+client-provided+option+to+guard+against+replication+factor+change+during+partition+reassignments > > > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14121 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best, > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > >
