Re: [VOTE] Add TaskId field to StreamsException

Hi Sophie, Add taskId to make the exception much clear is a good improvement. + 1 (non-binding) Thank you. Luke On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:10 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > Hey all, > > I'd like to kick off the vote on this small KIP which adds a TaskId field > to the StreamsException class. P

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-782: Expandable batch size in producer

Hi Ismael, Thanks for your comments. 1. Why do we have to reallocate the buffer? We can keep a list of buffers instead and avoid reallocation. -> Do you mean we allocate multiple buffers with "buffer.initial.size", and link them together (with linked list)? ex: a. We allocate 4KB initial buffer |

[VOTE] Add TaskId field to StreamsException

Hey all, I'd like to kick off the vote on this small KIP which adds a TaskId field to the StreamsException class. Please take a look and cast your vote when you have a chance. Links: - KIP-783: Add TaskId field to StreamsException - PR #114

[DISCUSS] Add TaskId field to StreamsException

Hey all, I'd like to propose a very small KIP to add a TaskId field to the StreamsException class. I will be kicking off the voting thread soon, but please review the KIP and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Links: - KIP-783: Add TaskId field to StreamsException

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-13381) Wrap all uncaught exceptions as StreamsException with TaskId field

A. Sophie Blee-Goldman created KAFKA-13381: -- Summary: Wrap all uncaught exceptions as StreamsException with TaskId field Key: KAFKA-13381 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13381

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-782: Expandable batch size in producer

I think we should also consider tweaking the semantics of batch.size so that the sent batches can be larger if the batch is not ready to be sent (while still respecting max.request.size and perhaps a new max.batch.size). Ismael On Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 12:08 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Luke, > > Th

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-782: Expandable batch size in producer

Hi Luke, Thanks for the KIP. Why do we have to reallocate the buffer? We can keep a list of buffers instead and avoid reallocation. Ismael On Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 2:02 AM Luke Chen wrote: > Hi Kafka dev, > I'd like to start the discussion for the proposal: KIP-782: Expandable > batch size in pro

[DISCUSS] KIP-782: Expandable batch size in producer

Hi Kafka dev, I'd like to start the discussion for the proposal: KIP-782: Expandable batch size in producer. The main purpose for this KIP is to have better memory usage in producer, and also save users from the dilemma while setting the batch size configuration. After this KIP, users can set a hi