+1 (binding) -Ewen
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Aarti Gupta <aartigup...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to > > process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer > > memory footprints in a separate KIP. > > > > -Thanks > > aarti > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > > > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on > the > > > number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a way > to > > > limit message processing time to avoid unexpected rebalancing. This > > change > > > is backwards compatible with the default implementing the current > > behavior. > > > > > > Here's a link to the KIP wiki: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-41%3A+KafkaConsumer+Max+Records > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- Thanks, Ewen
