Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

I think it is true: currently timestamp field can only be non-negative or -1, and any other values will be rejected; this proposal allows negative values but did not change the semantics of current values (non-negative and -1). So for current users, if they still only use non-negative or -1 values

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Guozhang, Can you speak to the following note under "impact on existing users": "No impact on current users, they should update their infrastructure in that order: Broker, Consumers, Producers." I think this isn't true, but if it is - we need to fix the proposal and make sure we allow upgrade at

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Hi. Guozhang, For fetch/produce requests, even though there is no protocol change, it is a semantic change if the timestamp can be negative. Some client implementations may depend on that. So, it's probably better to bump up the version of those requests. Thanks, Jun On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:21

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Hi folks, Thanks for your replies! Just to clarify, the proposal itself does not introduce any additional fields in the message format (some new attributes are mentioned in the Rejected Alternatives though), so my understand is that we do not need to increment the magic byte version of the message

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Hi, Konstandin, Thanks for the KIP. I agree with Magnus on the protocol version changes. As for the sentinel value, currently ConsumerRecord.NO_TIMESTAMP (-1) is used for V0 message format. For compatibility, it seems that we still need to preserve that. Jun On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:32 AM Magnus

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Sorry for getting in the game this late, and on the wrong thread! I think negative timestamps makes sense and is a good addition, but I have a couple of concerns with the proposal: 1. I believe any change to the protocol format or semantics require a protocol bump, in this case for ProduceReques

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

I may be missing something, but why are we using an attribute for this? IIRC, we normally bump protocol version to indicate semantic changes. If I understand correctly, not using an attribute will allow us to not change the message format (just the protocol), which makes the upgrade significantly e

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Bump up on this thread again: we have two binding votes already and need another committer to take a look at it and vote. Guozhang On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:34 AM Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote: > bump > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:48 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Thanks, > > Bill > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

bump On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:48 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > +1 > > Thanks, > Bill > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Matthias J. Sax > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

+1 Thanks, Bill On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Matthias J. Sax > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 5/29/18 9:14 AM, Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote: > > > Thanks, updated the KIP. > > > ht

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

+1 On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > -Matthias > > On 5/29/18 9:14 AM, Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote: > > Thanks, updated the KIP. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 228+Negative+record+timestamp+support <

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

+1 (binding) Thanks for the KIP. -Matthias On 5/29/18 9:14 AM, Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote: > Thanks, updated the KIP. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+support > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Thanks, updated the KIP. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+support > On May 24, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Konstantin, I have a

Re: [VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

Thanks Konstantin, I have a minor comment on the wiki page's "Proposed Solution" section: "The solution is to ignore that problem and it is a choice of the user to..": -- I'd suggest we rephrase it and admit "-1 is a special value in Kafka, which means we do not have a valid way to expre

[VOTE] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support

All, Thanks for the feedback on KIP-228. I've updated the KIP, and would like to start to start a vote. KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+support