Hi all,
I found a regression during the potential upgrade to 2.10.2 (and also
2.11).
I created a fix here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17690 and set
as blocker for the release
Please review
Thanks,
Nicolò Boschi
Il giorno mer 7 set 2022 alle ore 16:12 Haiting Jiang <
jianghait...@gmai
Actually Yong found the root cause of the issue, see
https://lists.apache.org/thread/d9gm50kysgjcpbq448s2sy822kho6z6k -
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3480
The issue only appears if "numReadWorkerThreads" is set to zero, which is a
non-sense config in a production environment.
But I fo
I have created a draft PR for making the changes in Pulsar CI:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17693
I'm looking forward to further practical improvements. I'd like to remind
everyone that we must make this change to address the CI slowness. After this
change, the experience of Pulsar CI w
Thanks, Lari
After I go through all the comments here.
Do we really need a new label?
It looks like if a committer thinks we should trigger the CI in the Pulsar
repo
- Passed in the fork repo
- No request change for this PR.
- ...
Just run the "/pulsarbot ready-to-test" or "/pulsarbot trigger-c
GitHub user mnit016 created a discussion: Why pulsar retention quota must
exceed configured backlog quota
Hello everyone,
I'm new to Pulsar, recently I get into a problem when configure the
backlog/retention quota for namespace.
The problem:
retention: {time: -1, size: 10M} => then I can se
On 2022/09/16 10:09:51 PengHui Li wrote:
> After I go through all the comments here.
> Do we really need a new label?
Good suggestion. It was also suggested yesterday by Matteo that a PR approval
should be sufficient. I have modified the solution in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17693 so
