Hi All,
Looks like we have a total of +10, with +6 binding. Thanks to all who voted
and participated in the discussion!
-Jason
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Thanks for the proposal. +1.
>
> Jun
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
Thanks for the proposal. +1.
Jun
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
> number of records returned in a call to poll()
+1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Jens Rantil wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
> >
+1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jason Gustafson
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
> number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a way to
>
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM -0800, "Joel Koshy"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to open up the vo
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM -0800, "Joel Koshy" wrote:
+1
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bou
+1
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
> number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a way to
> l
Also, great job on the KIP, Jason.
I love the solution you found and I love how well you explained it in the
KIP.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'd like to open up the vote on
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
> configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
> number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a
+1 (binding)
-Ewen
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Aarti Gupta
> wrote:
>
> > +1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to
> > process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer
> > me
+1.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Aarti Gupta wrote:
> +1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to
> process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer
> memory footprints in a separate KIP.
>
> -Thanks
> aarti
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM,
+1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to
process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer
memory footprints in a separate KIP.
-Thanks
aarti
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open up the vote on K
Hi All,
I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer
configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the
number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a way to
limit message processing time to avoid unexpected rebalancing. This change
13 matches
Mail list logo
