> Was this about the issue which this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283 resolved (since it is merged)?
I have the feeling that some past problems haven't been analyzed properly before deciding on the solution. There seems to be an understanding that switching from synchronous programming model to asynchronous programming model solves problems on its own. Before making such changes, I would expect that the issue is shared with the community and the assumptions about the problem and the planned solution are also shared. Yes, I think the issue has been fixed. Since only found this issue yesterday which might be a race condition, but can't confirm at that time, Demogorgon314 took a lot of effort to 100% confirm the issue. And share the context and PR today. > I am referring to PRs such as https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14013 where the only description of the motivation for the change is that "PersistentTopicsBase has some sync methods. Decide to make them async." . Would it be possible to improve the description on such changes since those changes are included in Pulsar 2.10.0 release? There seem to be about 20 recent PRs in total which are about sync->async changes: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+async What was the rationale for these changes? It's not a blocker for 2.10. And we also testing this part these few days to ensure that these changes do not introduce new problems. You can see nodece has tested it in pulsarctl and push the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14297 The rationale for these changes, I think it starts from this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13666 This is the only one example, we have seen the same issue again and again. After #13666 get merged, The contributors found there are many places that might also have the same problem. Thanks, Penghui On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 7:07 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed reply, Penghui. > > > And, for the new metadata API, we found an issue that will introduce the > > cache inconsistent issue, > > we are working on a fix, it should be a release blocker, otherwise, > > 2.10 will not able to use. > > Was this about the issue which this PR > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283 resolved (since it is merged)? > > I have the feeling that some past problems haven't been analyzed properly > before deciding on the solution. There seems to be an understanding that > switching from synchronous programming model to asynchronous programming > model solves problems on its own. Before making such changes, I would > expect that the issue is shared with the community and the assumptions > about the problem and the planned solution are also shared. > > I am referring to PRs such as > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14013 where the only description > of the motivation for the change is that "PersistentTopicsBase has some > sync methods. Decide to make them async." . > Would it be possible to improve the description on such changes since > those changes are included in Pulsar 2.10.0 release? > There seem to be about 20 recent PRs in total which are about sync->async > changes: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+async > What was the rationale for these changes? > > > I'm doing my best to follow PIP 47, but when seeing a potential break > > change, I need to confirm it. > > After all the potential break changes have been confirmed and fixed, I > will > > start the vote thread. > > The main concern I have about 2.10.0 release is that since we haven't > branched out branch-2.10 as it is defined in PIP-47. There are more PRs for > new changes coming in daily (such as the sync-async changes) which can > cause instability in Pulsar. > > Who can share more context about the sync->async changes? It is also > necessary for Pulsar 2.10.0 release notes since the sync->async changes are > included in the release. Why were these changes made? > > BR, > > -Lari >
