Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

Will send the detailed proposal. We can go from there. One interesting question I would like to reply here. > But this is more microbatching than streaming. I think people usually have a wrong impression about "microbatching" vs "streaming". The "microbatching" vs "streaming" are usually found i

Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

> > My replies inline assume the above, so if you have a different view of > > the general shape let me know. > > > > Yes. We are on the same view of the general shape. I will write down the > details of my proposal and will share it with the community tomorrow. Please do. I think there's a lot of

Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:37 AM Ivan Kelly wrote: > I think we agree on the general shape of the design as follows. > > - Transactions store message data somewhere that it is not > materialized to the client immediately. > - On commit, a single message is written to some log > - Commit messages a

Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

I think we agree on the general shape of the design as follows. - Transactions store message data somewhere that it is not materialized to the client immediately. - On commit, a single message is written to some log - Commit messages are then written to the topics of the logs in the transaction, w

Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:15 PM Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > Transactional acknowledgement also needs to be taken into account > > > > I don't think we have to treat `transactional acknowledgement` as a > special > > case. currently `acknowledgment` are actually "append" operations into > > cursor ledg

Re: PIP-31: Add support for transactional messaging

> > Transactional acknowledgement also needs to be taken into account > > I don't think we have to treat `transactional acknowledgement` as a special > case. currently `acknowledgment` are actually "append" operations into > cursor ledgers. > So the problem set can be reduced as `atomic append` to

Build failed in Jenkins: pulsar-website-build #577

See Changes: [guosijie] fix Jenkins pulsar-website-build error 571 (#3691) [guosijie] [Issue #3436][pulsar-broker] Creating REST Endpoint for non-partitioned -- [...t