Hi Apoorv, Thanks for your comment. AM1: Batches which have already exceeded the new `share.delivery.count.limit` should have one final delivery attempt I think since the check against the limit occurs at the end of a delivery attempt. If that makes works for you, I will update the KIP.
Thanks, Andrew On 2026/01/08 10:10:13 Apoorv Mittal wrote: > Hi Andrew, > Thanks for the KIP and it will be helpful to manage the configurations > dynamically. However, I have a follow up on Chia's question: > > AM1: Currently throttling in Share Partition adjusts the number of records > in share fetch request as per `group.share.delivery.count.limit` config > i.e. as the batch delivery count is incremented then number of records > returned in the response might get reduce depending on how close the > delivery count is against `group.share.delivery.count.limit`, finally > delivering a single record from the batch when delivery count is same as > `group.share.delivery.count.limit`. So if user dynamically sets > `share.delivery.count.limit` to a lower value from existing value then how > the current inflight batches should be treated i.e. the batches which have > already exceeded the new `share.delivery.count.limit` should be rejected > right away or should still consider the old limit? > > I am expecting the adjustment in throttled records to also carefully > consider when the `share.delivery.count.limit ` is increased but that will > be an implementation detail which needs to be carefully crafted. > > Regards, > Apoorv Mittal > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 5:24 PM Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > chia_00: The group-level configs are all dynamic. This means that when the > > limits > > are reduced, they may already be exceeded by active usage. Over time, as > > records > > are delivered and locks are released, the system will settle within the > > new limits. > > > > chia_01: This is an interesting question and there is some work off the > > back of it. > > > > For the interval and timeout configs, the broker will fail to start when > > the group-level > > config lies outside the min/max specified by the static broker configs. > > However, the > > logging when the broker fails to start is unhelpful because it omits the > > group ID of > > the offending group. This behaviour is common for consumer groups and > > share groups. > > I haven't tried streams groups, but I expect they're the same. This should > > be improved > > in terms of logging at the very least so it's clear what needs to be done > > to get the broker > > started. > > > > For share.record.lock.duration.ms, no such validation occurs as the > > broker starts. This > > is an omission. We should have the same behaviour for all of the min/max > > bounds > > I think. My view is failing to start the broker is safest for now. > > > > For the new configs in the KIP, the broker should fail to start if the > > group-level config > > is outside the bounds of the min/max static broker configs. > > > > wdyt? I'll make a KIP update when I think we have consensus. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On 2026/01/05 13:56:16 Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > > > hi Andrew > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I have a few questions regrading the configuration > > behaviour: > > > > > > chia_00: Dynamic Update Behavior > > > Are these new group-level configuration dynamic? Specifically, if we > > alter share.delivery.count.limit or share.partition.max.record.locks at > > runtime, will the changes take effect immediately for active share group? > > > > > > chia_01: Configuration Validation on Broker Restart > > > How does the broker handle existing group configuration that fall out of > > bounds after a broker restart? For example, suppose a group has > > share.partition.max.record.locks set to 100 (which is valid at the time). > > If the broker is later restarted with a stricter limit of > > group.share.max.partition.max.record.locks = 50, how will the group loaded > > handle this conflict? > > > > > > Best, > > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > On 2025/11/24 21:15:48 Andrew Schofield wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I’d like to start the discussion on a small KIP which adds some > > configurations for share groups which were previously only available as > > broker configurations. > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1240%3A+Additional+group+configurations+for+share+groups > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > >
