Hey Konstantin, Thanks for updating the KIP.
If we were to support negative timestamp in the message, we probably also want to support negative timestamp in ListOffsetRequest. Currently in ListOffsetRequest, timestamp value -2 is used to indicate earliest timestamp and timestamp value -1 is used to indicate latest timestamp. It seems that we should make changes accordingly so that -1 and -2 can be supported as valid timestamp in ListOffsetRequest. What do you think? Thanks, Dong On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin <chuhlo...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi all, > > I've updated KIP with few more details: > Added (proposed) Changes in binary message format < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+ > Negative+record+timestamp+support#KIP-228Negativerecordtimes > tampsupport-Changesinbinarymessageformat> > Added Changes from producer perspective <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf > luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+supp > ort#KIP-228Negativerecordtimestampsupport-Changesfromproducerperspective> > Added Changes from consumer perspective <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf > luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+supp > ort#KIP-228Negativerecordtimestampsupport-Changesfromconsumerperspective> > > Let me know if it makes sense to you. > > -Konstantin > > > On Dec 7, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin <chuhlo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > Indeed for consumers it will be not obvious what −1 means: actual > timestamp > > or no timestamp. Nevertheless, it's just −1 millisecond, so I thought it > will be > > not a big deal to leave it (not clean, but acceptable). > > > > I agree that it will much cleaner to have a different type of topics > that support > > negative timestamp and/or threat Long.MIN_VALUE as a no-timestamp. > > I'll update KIP to make it a proposed solution. > > > > Thanks, > > Konstantin > > > >> On Dec 5, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for the KIP Konstantin. > >> > >> From my understanding, you propose to just remove the negative timestamp > >> check in KafkaProducer and KafkaStreams. If topics are configured with > >> `CreateTime` brokers also write negative timestamps if they are embedded > >> in the message. > >> > >> However, I am not sure about the overlapping semantics for -1 timestamp. > >> My concerns is, that this ambiguity might result in issues. Assume that > >> there is a topic (configured with `CreateTime`) for which an old and a > >> new producer are writing. The old producer uses old message format and > >> does not include any timestamp in the message. The broker will "upgrade" > >> this message to the new format and set -1. At the same time, the new > >> producer could write a message with valid timestamp -1. A consumer could > >> not distinguish between both cases... > >> > >> Also, there might be other Producer implementations that write negative > >> timestamps. Thus, those might already exist. For Streams, we don't > >> process those and we should make sure to keep it this way (to avoid > >> ambiguity). > >> > >> Thus, it might actually make sense to introduce a new timestamp type to > >> express those new semantics. The question is still, how to deal with > >> older producer clients that want to write to those topics. > >> > >> - We could either use `Long.MIN_VALUE` as "unknown" (this would be way > >> better than -1 as it's not in the middle of the range but at the very > >> end and it will also have well-defined semantics). > >> - Or we use a "mixed-mode" where we use broker wall-clock time for > >> older message formats (ie, append time semantics for older producers) > >> - Third, we would even give an error message back to older producers; > >> this might change the backward compatibility guarantees Kafka provides > >> so far when upgrading brokers. However, this would not affect exiting > >> topics, but only newly created ones (and we could disallow changing the > >> semantics to the new timestamp type to guard against miss > >> configuration). Thus, it might be ok. > >> > >> For Streams, we could check the topic config and process negative > >> timestamps only if the topic is configures with the new timestamp type. > >> > >> > >> Maybe I am a little bit to paranoid about overloading -1 semantics. > >> Curious to get feedback from others. > >> > >> > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> > >> On 12/5/17 1:24 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote: > >>> Hi Dong, > >>> > >>> Currently we are storing historical timestamp in the message. > >>> > >>> What we are trying to achieve is to make it possible to do Kafka lookup > >>> by timestamp. Ideally I would do `offsetsForTimes` to find articles > published > >>> in 1910s (if we are storing articles on the log). > >>> > >>> So first two suggestions aren't really covering our use-case. > >>> > >>> We could create a new timestamp type like "HistoricalTimestamp" or > "MaybeNegativeTimestamp". > >>> And the only difference between this one and CreateTime is that it > could be negative. > >>> I tend to use CreateTime for this purpose because it's easier to > understand from > >>> user perspective as a timestamp which publisher can set. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Konstantin > >>> > >>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hey Konstantin, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the KIP. I have a few questions below. > >>>> > >>>> Strictly speaking Kafka actually allows you to store historical data. > And > >>>> user are free to encode arbitrary timestamp field in their Kafka > message. > >>>> For example, your Kafka message can currently have Json or Avro > format and > >>>> you can put a timestamp field there. Do you think that could address > your > >>>> use-case? > >>>> > >>>> Alternatively, KIP-82 introduced Record Header in Kafka and you can > also > >>>> define your customized key/value pair in the header. Do you think > this can > >>>> address your use-case? > >>>> > >>>> Also, currently there are two types of timestamp according to KIP-32. > If > >>>> the type is LogAppendTime then the timestamp value is the time when > broker > >>>> receives the message. If the type is CreateTime then the timestamp > value is > >>>> determined when producer produces message. With these two > definitions, the > >>>> timestamp should always be positive. We probably need a new type here > if we > >>>> can not put timestamp in the Record Header or the message payload. > Does > >>>> this sound reasonable? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Dong > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Konstantin Chukhlomin < > chuhlo...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have created a KIP to support negative timestamp: > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >>>>> 228+Negative+record+timestamp+support <https://cwiki.apache.org/ > >>>>> confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+support> > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are proposed changes: https://github.com/apache/ > >>>>> kafka/compare/trunk...chuhlomin:trunk <https://github.com/apache/ > >>>>> kafka/compare/trunk...chuhlomin:trunk> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm pretty sure that not cases are covered, so comments and > suggestions > >>>>> are welcome. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> Konstantin > >>> > >> > > > >
