[VOTE] PIP-165: Auto release client useless connections

[VOTE] PIP-165: Auto release client useless connectionsHi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Auto release client useless connections" (PIP-165). The proposal can be read at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15516 and the discussi

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] michaeljmarshall commented on pull request #266: Add bk, zk securityContext to support upgrade to non-root docker image

michaeljmarshall commented on PR #266: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/266#issuecomment-1143149449 > Thanks @michaeljmarshall shouldn't the helm chart version change? @frankjkelly good question. I know our recent release procedure has tied individual PRs with ve

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-158: Split client TLS transport encryption from authentication

> Is it possible to deprecate the option to configure the certificates in the AuthenticationTls class? I think it should be since the certs are now configured as top level configuration, and they need only be configured once. We can't do that deprecate the option to configure the certificates in t

Pulsar Community Meeting Notes 2022/05/26, (8:30 AM PST)

Hi Pulsar Community, Here are the meeting notes from last Thursday's community meeting. Thanks to all who participated! Disclaimer: If something is misattributed or misrepresented, please send a correction to this list. Source google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19dXkVXeU2q_nHmkG8zURj

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-158: Split client TLS transport encryption from authentication

I know it's a bit late to respond, but just want to confirm that Zixuan is correct that we cannot deprecate the `AuthenticationTls` class because we rely on that class to set the authentication mode in the pulsar protocol. That mode is then used by the ServerCnx for authentication and authorization

[GitHub] [pulsar-site] urfreespace merged pull request #102: update scripts

urfreespace merged PR #102: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/102 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.a

Re: About 2.10.1, 2.9.2, 2.8.4 has this been cherry picked yet? [fix][java-client] Fix performance regression with message listener

We use the `cherry-picked` label to mark the PR has been cherry-picked into the specific branch. For example, the `cherry-picked/branch-2.10` label means the PR has been cherry-picked to branch-2.10. Thanks, Yunze > 2022年6月1日 09:57，Dave Fisher 写道： > > This is a fix for a severe performance r

Re: About 2.10.1, 2.9.2, 2.8.4 has this been cherry picked yet? [fix][java-client] Fix performance regression with message listener

Hi Dave, Yes, it's cherry-picked on Apr 20. Here are the commits: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/dcecd86225e2ca681edb0cbf922919539c7174f9 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0aad9a12339de434ce149cd57d524a3b45b1acc8 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/c7124415b118bc37ee917f4b4c532e

[GitHub] [pulsar-site] urfreespace merged pull request #101: update style for navbar

urfreespace merged PR #101: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/101 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.a

[GitHub] [pulsar-site] urfreespace opened a new pull request, #101: update style for navbar

urfreespace opened a new pull request, #101: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/101 https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/76024046/171316581-03ab4f1a-0c4b-4e6b-8ae9-619ab5fb9afe.png";> -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the messa

About 2.10.1, 2.9.2, 2.8.4 has this been cherry picked yet? [fix][java-client] Fix performance regression with message listener

This is a fix for a severe performance regression and I wanted to be sure that it gets cherry picked. > On May 31, 2022, at 6:48 PM, GitBox wrote: > > > dave2wave commented on PR #15162: > URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15162#issuecomment-1143028123 > > Has this been cherry pick

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] massakam merged pull request #216: Bump grunt from 1.5.2 to 1.5.3

massakam merged PR #216: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/216 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@puls

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

Hi Baodi, Thanks for the reply and update of the PIP. 1. Pulsar Functions currently isn't integrated with the Transaction feature yet, so there's no EXACTLY_ONCE support. 2. And Yes, "EFFECTIVELY_ONCE = ATLEAST_ONCE + Message Deduplication" On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:16 AM 石宝迪 wrote: > >> If

Re: [Discuss] Update Helm Chart to Support 2.10 Docker Image

Hi Michael, Thanks for the detailed explanation. On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:08 PM Michael Marshall wrote: > Hi Neng Lu, > > I put together a doc [0] that includes some tips for troubleshooting a > non-root docker image. Some of the details depend on how you're > deploying Pulsar. > > If you can

Re: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:21 AM Haiting Jiang wrote: > +1 > > Thanks, > Haiting > > On 2022/05/26 13:40:30 zhaocong wrote: > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > > > I would like to start a VOTE on "Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on > Proxy" > > (PIP-168). > > > > > > The proposal ca

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

>> If you fail to start the function, you immediately break people's > functions when they upgrade to this version. How about notifying them once > via logger (WARN)? I tend to fail. Although this breaks the current logic. but the current implementation can be considered is a bug. > It will flo

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

Regarding > > >1. I would add: Validate existing ProcessingGuarantee test for >AtMostOnce, AtLeastOnce, ExactlyOnce still works (when autoAck=true) > > Remove "I would add:" On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:24 PM Baozi wrote: > Hi, Asaf. > > Thanks review. > > >> I'm not entirely sure that is

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

Hi Baodi, Regarding > >1. When the delivery semantic is ATMOST_ONCE, add verify autoAck must >be true. If the validation fails, let the function fail to start (This >temporarily resolves the configuration ambiguity). When autoAck is >subsequently removed, the message will be acked

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

>> This I don't understand fully. When you introduce MANUAL > ProcessingGuarantee configuration, isn't configuration universal to all > languages? When someone uses pulsar-admin to create a function, regardless > of the language, they can specify Processing Guarantee. If we're adding > this ability

Re: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

+1 Thanks, Haiting On 2022/05/26 13:40:30 zhaocong wrote: > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > I would like to start a VOTE on "Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy" > (PIP-168). > > > The proposal can be read at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15631 > > and the discussion thead is avail

Re: [DISCUSS] [PIP-165] Auto release client useless connections

Hi Yubiao, Thanks for your explanation. I get your point. It's a nice optimization, and I think we can do this in follow up PRs. Thanks, Haiting. On 2022/05/27 14:00:16 Yubiao Feng wrote: > Hi Haiting > > > Currently, the client picks connection id randomly within [0 - > `maxConnectionsPerHosts

Re: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

+1 Le mar. 31 mai 2022 à 10:33, Zixuan Liu a écrit : > +1 (non-binding) > > On 2022/05/26 13:40:30 zhaocong wrote: > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > > > I would like to start a VOTE on "Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on > Proxy" > > (PIP-168). > > > > > > The proposal can be read at > https://gi

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

Only commiters can modify wikis, we can discuss that first. Thanks, Baodi Shi > 2022年5月30日 22:5828，Asaf Mesika 写道： > > Still new to the PIP process: Shouldn't this PIP be added here > ? > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:52 AM Ba

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-166: Function add NONE delivery semantics

Hi, Asaf. Thanks review. >> I'm not entirely sure that is accurate. The Effectively-Once as I > understand it is achieved using transactions, thus the consumption of that > message and production of any messages, as a result, are considered one > atomic unit - either message acknowledged and mes

RE: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

+1 (non-binding) On 2022/05/26 13:40:30 zhaocong wrote: > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > I would like to start a VOTE on "Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy" > (PIP-168). > > > The proposal can be read at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15631 > > and the discussion thead is availabl

Re: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

+1 (binding) Il giorno mar 31 mag 2022 alle ore 09:58 Cong Zhao ha scritto: > > ok, I have added the new configuration to the proposal. > > On 2022/05/31 05:14:13 PengHui Li wrote: > > +1 > > > > Could you please also add the new configuration to the proposal? > > I see you added in the PR https:

Re: [VOTE] PIP-168: Support zero-copy of NIC to NIC on Proxy

ok, I have added the new configuration to the proposal. On 2022/05/31 05:14:13 PengHui Li wrote: > +1 > > Could you please also add the new configuration to the proposal? > I see you added in the PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15678/files > but not present in the proposal > > Thanks, >