Sounds good to me. One consideration related to message acknowledgements is that there are currently relatively low limits to how many acknowledgements can be persisted.
Some details in the discussion https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/23990 There are configurable values managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersistInMetadataStore, managedLedgerPersistIndividualAckAsLongArray, managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersist and managedCursorInfoCompressionType to allow storing increasing the limits without exceeding ZooKeeper's maximum ZNode size configured in Pulsar (-Djute.maxbuffer=10485760). One detail is that managedLedgerPersistIndividualAckAsLongArray is currently missing from broker.conf. It's only in pulsar-broker-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/ServiceConfiguration.java . Configuring maxBatchDeletedIndexToPersist was completely missing. That's addressed in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24392 The managedCursorInfoCompressionType setting is currently missing from broker.conf, that's addressed by https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24391 PRs https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24392 and https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24391 also contain better documentation for the settings. We should also reconsider the default values for the various settings in Pulsar 4.1, for example, it would be useful to enable compression by default. -Lari On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 at 05:00, SiNan Liu <liusinan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, I'm also re-evaluating the current implementation. > > I believe that implementing it directly via message acknowledgment would be > better, and I've been testing this approach over the past couple of days. > > The current PIP modifies the internals of BucketDelayedDeliveryTracker, and > this solution isn't as good as the message acknowledgment method. > > Later, I will change this PIP's implementation to use message > acknowledgment, and the current approach will become an alternative > solution. > > > Thanks, > sinan > > > Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org>于2025年6月5日 周四19:56写道： > > > Thanks for making the proposal and putting a significant effort in > > preparing it. > > > > Would it be possible to consider an alternative solution where delayed > > messages > > could be cancelled by acknowledging the messages? > > > > The admin API doesn't current contain an endpoint for acknowledging a > > message, but I don't see a reason why that couldn't be introduced. > > > > Any thoughts about this? > > > > -Lari > > > > On 2025/06/01 13:16:43 SiNan Liu wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > > I want to start a discussion on > > > PIP-423: Add Support for Cancelling Individual Delayed Messages > > > Proposal link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24370 > > > > > > I'm looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > sinan > > > > >
