Thanks Jun. I have updated the KIP to reflect this change. On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Dong, > > Yes, this change makes sense to me. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Jun and everyone, > > > > I would like to change the KIP in the following way. Currently, if any > > replica if offline, the purge result for a partition will > > be NotEnoughReplicasException and its low_watermark will be 0. The > > motivation for this approach is that we want to guarantee that the data > > before purgedOffset has been deleted on all replicas of this partition if > > purge result indicates success. > > > > But this approach seems too conservative. It should be sufficient in most > > cases to just tell user success and set low_watermark to minimum > > logStartOffset of all live replicas in the PurgeResponse if > logStartOffset > > of all live replicas have reached purgedOffset. This is because for an > > offline replicas to become online and be elected leader, it should have > > received one FetchReponse from the current leader which should tell it to > > purge beyond purgedOffset. The benefit of doing this change is that we > can > > allow purge operation to succeed when some replica is offline. > > > > Are you OK with this change? If so, I will go ahead to update the KIP and > > implement this behavior. > > > > Thanks, > > Dong > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hey Jun, > > > > > > Do you have time to review the KIP again or vote for it? > > > > > > Hey Ewen, > > > > > > Can you also review the KIP again or vote for it? I have discussed with > > > Radai and Becket regarding your concern. We still think putting it in > > Admin > > > Client seems more intuitive because there is use-case where application > > > which manages topic or produces data may also want to purge data. It > > seems > > > weird if they need to create a consumer to do this. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dong > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Mayuresh > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Sorry for the duplicated email. It seems that gmail will put the > > voting > > >> > email in this thread if I simply replace DISCUSS with VOTE in the > > >> subject. > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > It seems that there is no further concern with the KIP-107. At > this > > >> point > > >> > > we would like to start the voting process. The KIP can be found at > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-107 > > >> > > %3A+Add+purgeDataBefore%28%29+API+in+AdminClient. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Dong > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -Regards, > > >> Mayuresh R. Gharat > > >> (862) 250-7125 > > >> > > > > > > > > >
