Re: [VOTE] PIP-290 Support WSS E2E encryption and not need to expose the private key to the WebSocket Proxy

+1 (binding) This proposal looks great to me. But I've got several concerns which will not affect this PIP voting. 1. You mixed compression and E2E encryption support in one proposal. I am unsure if we should split them into two parts(compression & E2E) to help make the proposal not too comple

Re: [DICUSS] Topic-Partition Auto Creation after Partitioned Topic Force-Removal

Hi, Heesung Sohn After PIP https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239 is implemented, the topic name includes `-partition-` keywords without metadata that will be rejected.  :) Best, Mattison On 24 Aug 2023 at 07:58 +0800, Heesung Sohn , wrote: > Hi dev, > > I am proposing a behavior change

Re: [VOTE] PIP 296: Introduce the `getLastMessageIds` API to Reader

+1(binding) Best, Mattison On 28 Aug 2023 at 08:53 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:09 PM Yubiao Feng > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Thanks > > Yubiao Feng > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:53 PM Xiangying Meng > > wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] PIP-297: Support terminating Function & Connector with the fatal exception

+1 (binding) Best, Mattison On 5 Sep 2023 at 09:07 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:40 AM Baodi Shi wrote: > > > +1(non-binding) > > > > > > Thanks, > > Baodi Shi > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2023 at 05:23:38, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Cherry-pick #18518 into branch-2.10 and branch-2.11

+1 Best, Mattison On 5 Sep 2023 at 10:00 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:04 AM Yubiao Feng > wrote: > > > Cherry-picked. > > > > Since the method `isPartitionedTopicBeingDeletedAsync` only exists in > > `branch-3.0`, the change > > > > https://gi

Re: [VOTE] PIP-224: Introduce TopicMessageId for consumer's MessageId related APIs

+1(non-binding) Best, Mattison On Dec 5, 2022, 15:09 +0800, Zike Yang , wrote: > +1(non-binding) > > Best, > Zike Yang > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM Baodi Shi wrote: > > > > +1(non-binding) > > > > Thanks, > > Baodi Shi > > > > > > 2022年12月5日 12:51，Yunze Xu 写道： > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > >

[DISCUSS] Introduce the blocked thread detector

Hello, everyone. Since Apache Pulsar aims to be a pure asynchronous-based application, we can introduce a blocked thread detector to check all threads. That can help Apache Pulsar detect unexpected blocking calls that are blocking other operations. WDYT? Best, Mattison

Re: [Vote] PIP-223: Add metrics for all Rest Endpoints

+1 Best, Mattison On Nov 28, 2022, 16:47 +0800, Jiuming Tao , wrote: > Dear Pulsar Community, > > Please review and vote on this PIP. > > PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18560 > > Discuss thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/z74vcn0yolzzrcc4ftonm9j3nbk4pzxm > > Thanks, > Ta

[DISCUSS] Remove restful producer component

Hello, everyone. I'd like to start the discussion about `Remove restful producer component`. The Github repository path is here[1]. As discussed before[2], moving this feature to another project is better. Also, we didn't provide the consumer part in the pulsar repo. I think it's a good chanc

[DISCUSS] How to handle broker public API changes

Hi, All Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for breaking pulsar broker public API. [1] Since pulsar has extended abilities like protocol handler, additional servlet, interceptor etc., many libraries rely on broker public API. I'm not sure if we've got to ensure compatibility for this.

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle broker public API changes

> Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker > public API? For example, this PR[1] change the public API from non-argument to one argument. It will cause other libraries also change for it. I'm not sure that ensuring the compatibility of method signatures is wor

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle broker public API changes

>  It would help me understand if you would explain how apis were changed in > this PR Sorry, I explained above. it's a small break, maybe it just breaks some unit test mock, but it can be used as an example. > We should be sure to track and then highlight API changes in release > documents. > A

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove restful producer component

Hi Haiting > Is it better to finish it first, and then remove this from the main repo? I think we can remove it first because it is not a complete feature. Anyone interested in working on it can find the code from the git history and migrate it to another repo. Ps: it looks like the current impl

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle broker public API changes

> I'm afraid it's very hard to avoid these API changes. Take theprotocol > handler as example, it could make use of nearly all modulesvia the > `PulsarService` object. The cost to keep the compatibilitymight be high so > that much legacy code could be left. For example,each time a new argument i

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.11.0 Candidate-2

Hi, All I found two regressions that need to block this release. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18816 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18812 Best, Mattison On Dec 8, 2022, 07:15 +0800, Massimiliano Mirelli , wrote: > Hi, > I am running some long-lasting tests on this rc at the mome

[DISCUSS] Introduce oshi library to sensory OS resources

Hi, All I would like to introduce a new library oshi[1] to help Apache Pulsar sensory OS resources. It can help us to get away from the complex file manipulation and cross-platform compatibility issues in some operating systems. code example:   https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18984 Plea

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-232: Introduce thread monitor to check if thread is blocked for long time.

Agree +1. I remember I mentioned this idea before https://lists.apache.org/thread/qwcxrr7o29q66dgs4lqkk1nvvvhbjl2s FYI: https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vert.x/blob/d711e50174f84a06744c855dd29222beaa97bdeb/src/main/java/io/vertx/core/impl/btc/BlockedThreadChecker.java IMO, we can use one propos

Re: [DISCUSS] Change the default IO threads and listener threads of Java Client

+1 My concern is whether this change will affect some users who are creating many clients. I think we can wait for other users to confirm it. (If this will be affected, maybe we can give it a max_io_thread_num and then expand the size from 1 to max_io_thread_num when adding a new consumer or pr

Re: [Vote] PIP-231: Add metric for topic load failed

+1 Best, Mattison On Dec 27, 2022, 16:27 +0800, Jiuming Tao , wrote: > Hello pulsar community, > > I'm starting the VOTE for PIP-231: Add metric for topic load failed. > > Motivation: > Currently, we have a `topic_load_times` metric to track how long a topic > load succeeds. > But when loading a

[DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, All I'd like to start a discussion of this behaviour change as follow. The issue is described here:  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19085 And the fix PR here:  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19086 --- Behaviour change: Before: we can create non-existent persistent partition

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, Enrico > Please note that the new test case is about non-persistent topics I'm sorry, It's my mistake, the non-persistent already fix this problem, I need to change the test topic name to persistent. Best, Mattison On Dec 28, 2022, 16:27 +0800, Enrico Olivelli , wrote: > I agree with you. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, All I have another question that needs to discuss. Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? If so, this is a little confusing with the partitioned topic. e.g.: TopicName#isPartitioned method. Best, Mattis

Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce oshi library to sensory OS resources

I will draft a PIP for it. Mattison On Jan 9, 2023, 22:30 +0800, Dave Fisher , wrote: > I think oshi is very interesting. I really would like a discussion about how > we will use it along with how we can test for any gaps it might have. Testing > will need to consider many more types of platform

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-240 A new API to unload subscriptions

Hi, Yubiao I agree with this idea because some users care about the production rate. They don't want to unload the whole topic to fix the subscription problem. I've got some questions: 1. How do you handle the race condition when you are trying to unload the subscription, and the new consumer

Re: [DISCUSS] Code freeze for Pulsar 2.12

Isn't the next version LTS 3.0? Best Mattison On Jan 20, 2023, 07:11 +0800, Christophe Bornet , wrote: > Hi Pulsar community, > > It's great that we released Pulsar 2.11. It has taken quite some time to > stabilize the release branch and now we have more than 5 months of awesome > features and com

[DISCUSS] PIP-242: Introduce enableStrictTopicName to reject creating topic with -partition- keyword.

Hello everyone. I hope you guys are all doing well. I would like to start the discussion for PIP-242 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239, Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Best, Mattison --- Paste original PIP content to help quote -- ### Motivation C

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242: Introduce enableStrictTopicName to reject creating topic with -partition- keyword.

Hi,  Asaf, Yunze > You mean to say, if the topic is partitioned, the word "partition" can > notappear in the submitted topic name, in the topic creation API? It's a little bit confusing. I will give some examples to help explain: Create a topic: • no corresponding partitioned topic • persist

[DISCUSS][txn] Move checked exception into builder when newTransaction.

Hello, everyone I submitted this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19356 to discuss if we can accept moving this checked exception into the builder to avoid adding more useless try-catch blocks. In practice, we should create the new transaction like this: ```java final TransactionBuilde

[Vote] PIP-242: Introduce enableStrictTopicName to reject creating topic with -partition- keyword.

Hello everyone. I would like to start the vote for PIP-242  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239, Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Best, Mattison --- Paste original PIP content to help quote -- ### Motivation Currently, the Apache Pulsar broker allows

Re: [Vote] PIP-242: Introduce enableStrictTopicName to reject creating topic with -partition- keyword.

Passed the voting by  8 +1 (5 binding and 3 non-binding) Closed. Best, Mattison On Jan 31, 2023, 06:57 +0800, mattisonc...@gmail.com, wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I would like to start the vote for PIP-242  > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239, > Please let me know if you have any conc

[DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi, All In the current implementation, pulsar didn't support topic name restriction. It's a good chance to discuss it. I think this discussion aims to identify what types of topic names we all need to restrict. I know three topic names that need to be restricted at the moment. 1. The `-partit

Re: [DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi, Yong > How about using a blacklist way to restrict it? It's a great idea. Maybe we can define the rules like  `keyword` with regular expressions. Best, Mattison On Feb 2, 2023, 10:52 +0800, Yong Zhang , wrote: > Mattison, > > I agree with you about restricting the topic name. > > How abou

Re: [DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi, Yunze > The topic name character validation is already done by`NamedEntity#checkName` As Michael mentioned, the `NamedEntity#checkName` just checked the tenant and namespace. > But I have a concern that whether we shouldtreat all topics that start with > the long underscore ("__") as systemto

Re: [DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi, Asaf We are using the regular expression to check the name. "^[-=:.\\w]*$" The \w means [A-Za-z0-9_] , which includes underscores. Best, Mattison On Feb 2, 2023, 23:01 +0800, Asaf Mesika , wrote: > NamedEntity is not allowing underscores - does it make sense? > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 8:

Re: [DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi, Asaf > I don't understand the idea suggested of making the validation > rulesconfigurable.If understand correctly:* "-partition" is not something you > want configurable - it should always bevalidated* System topics - once we > agree on a naming convention going forward, itshould always be v

Re: [DISCUSS] Topic name restriction

Hi guys. Thanks for your discussion in this thread. Since we have reached the discussion deadline. > I will keep this discussion for a week. If there are no more new types of > restrictions, I will refine the previous PIP-242[0] to explain more details. I would like to refine the PIP-242, which

[DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi guys. This is the refined PIP-242 discussion thread. Because we have discussed some parts of this in another thread[0][1], we can start the standard PIP discussion to reach a detailed consensus. You can check here[2] to see the PIP. Best, Mattison [0] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5s4ko

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi, Asaf Welcome to join this discussion. > You mean that allows the *system* to use it when it's a partitioned topic? Sorry, I didn't get your point. What do you mean by *system*? > Why postfix of `__`?Why uppercase ?Maybe `__system__`? Yes, That is a key point that I want to discuss in this thre

Re: [VOTE] PIP-175: Extend time based release process

+1(non-binding) Best, Mattison On Feb 9, 2023, 04:44 +0800, Matteo Merli , wrote: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 > > > > > ## Motivation > > In PIP-47 ( > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

>These topics all end in uppercase letters, such as `-RETRY,` `-DLQ.` Is it better to define the system topic name in uppercase( '__SYSTEM__' )? I think we don't need to mark `-DLQ` and `-RETRY` to be the keyword. because they are the same as the normal topic for the broker side. Best, Mattison

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

> Could you list all existing system topic names that are used so we > canunderstand the rule better? Yes, sure. I will list it later. > And I saw that this proposal only forbids the creation of thesetopics. What > about writing messages to them? I think it's better notto allow Pulsar > clients

Re: [VOTE][PIP-226] Add JWKS support for AuthenticationProviderToken

+1, (non-binding) Best, Mattison On Dec 22, 2022, 11:24 +0800, Zixuan Liu , wrote: > Hi all, > > Voting for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18798. > > Thanks, > Zixuan

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi, All First of all, I want to list all of the system topics as follows. That Yunze has mentioned before. Namespace level: • pulsar/system • transaction_coordinator_assign • __transaction_log_ • resource-usage • pulsar/ • healthcheck Topic level: • __change_events • __transac

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi Asaf There is a link to introduce the dynamic configuration. https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/2.10.x/admin-api-brokers/#dynamic-broker-configuration Best, Mattison On Feb 14, 2023, 17:06 +0800, Asaf Mesika , wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:46 AM wrote: > > > Hi, Asaf > > > > Welcome to join

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi Enrico I think it's a good question. We can introduce a new method in the BrokerService to help brokers create the topic internally first(maybe just metadata is enough), and then to use pulsar client connect to it. WDYT? Best, Mattison On Feb 16, 2023, 00:01 +0800, Enrico Olivelli , wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

> I am sorry but I am not sure that this is enough to preventreads/writes from > unallowed clients. IMO, We can consider the authorisation part in another PIP because We are just focusing on adding the topic name constraint of topic creation. Maybe we can use another PIP to clearify all of syste

Re: Force redirect questions from Slack to GitHub Discussions or StackOverflow?

+1 Since web pages are more easily and public. Best Mattison On Feb 16, 2023, 07:58 +0800, Christophe Bornet , wrote: > +100 > Also note that for good or bad reasons, the number of questions on > StaOverflow is often used as a metric for the popularity of a project. > > Le mer. 15 févr. 2023 à 13

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch the client complier to JDK 11 or 17 from JDK 8

-1 The reason is the same as Yunze mentioned. It's a kind of break for the user. We can't force our user upgrade the application JDK version by pulsar's bug. That will make our users frustrated. Plus, the pulsar LTS is 3.0. I think it's better to keep the JDK 1.8 in this version. as users will

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Hi, All After discussing with Enrico and Michael offline. I will split the discussed topic into two PIP. 1. Topic name restrictions a. `-partition-` keyword. b. enable topic name character pattern. 2. System topic a. System topic name pattern. b. System topic authorisation. c.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Roadmap for 3.0 release

+1 On Feb 18, 2023, 14:56 +0800, Michael Marshall , wrote: > +1 - this timeline sounds even better :) > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:41 AM Matteo Merli wrote: > > > > Ups, > > > > I started from the release date I was meaning April for the RCs: > > > > * Tue - 2023-04-11 > > * Tue - 2023-04-18 - R

[VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

Hi, All After a fascinating discussion, I would start the vote of PIP-242. We have chosen to drop out the `system topic` related improvement to another PIP. Therefore, the current version is simple enough and it has a clear boundary. Please leave +1/-1 in this thread to join the vote. and feel

[DISCUSS] Release 2.9.5

Hello, Pulsar community: I'd like to propose releasing Apache Pulsar 2.9.5. It's been about two months since 2.9.4 was released. There are 54 PRs [0] needed to cherry-pick in branch-2.9. I will cherry-pick these PRs for branch-2.9. Exclude some PRs that merge directly into branch-2.9. There are

Re: [VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

This PIP has passed voting. 5 (binding) and 4 (non-binding) +1 (binding) • Yunze Xu • Penghui Li • Guo jiwei • Haiting Jiang • Cong Bo +1 (non-binding) • Asaf Mesika • Cong Zhao • Zike Yang • avinash kala Thanks to you all, Let's meet at the next PIP. Best, Mattison On Feb 18, 2023, 16:58

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 2.9.5

Hi, All I am sorry, Cong Zhao will takeover this release. Best, Mattison On Feb 21, 2023, 15:11 +0800, Haiting Jiang , wrote: > +1 > > Haiting > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:11 PM Hang Chen wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks, > > Hang > > > > Enrico Olivelli 于2023年2月20日周一 21:11写道： > > > > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Change PIP template

+1 Best, Mattison On Feb 26, 2023, 23:02 +0800, Dave Fisher , wrote: > Excellent proposal. > > Inline below. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 26, 2023, at 3:19 AM, Asaf Mesika wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to suggest two changes I'd like to make to the PIP design > > template: > > 1

Re: Please stop cherry-picking (breaking) changes to the released branches

+1000, We should pay attention on two places: 1. Why add release/xxx label to the breaking change PR ? 2. We should recheck the context when committer cherry-pick PRs. Best, Mattison On Feb 27, 2023, 23:27 +0800, Enrico Olivelli , wrote: > Hello Committers, > I believe that we should stop cherr

[DISCUSS] Critical problem report - session notification thread deadlock

Hi, All We found a critical problem that will cause the pulsar cluster to part “deaf” status. the broker can’t receive zookeeper session notification to revalidate namespace bundle ownership and leader election. That means it will cause one topic may have two owner brokers, and the leader elect

Re: Release 2.11.1

+1, Thanks for your work! Best, Mattison On Mar 15, 2023, 15:24 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 > > Just a reminder, this one [0] might be a blocker for the subsequent patch > releases since it has introduced a new rule of the rule_name. > Here [1] is the discussion under the private mailing threa

Re: [DISCUSS] Cherry-pick #15121 into branch-2.10 to solve the issue sasl authentication failure

I agree with cherry-picking PR 15121 to branch-2.10 and keep compatibility. Best, Mattison On Mar 28, 2023, 19:52 +0800, Yubiao Feng , wrote: > Hi community > > ### Summary > The Admin client (`pulsar-admin`) and Java Client (PulsarAdmin) will throw > Unauthorized Ex in both scenarios: > - If t

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.10.0 Candidate 1

+1 (binding) • Built the project • Ran the simple producer & consumer with pulsar 2.9.4, 2.10.3, 2.11.0 Best, Mattison On Mar 30, 2023, 17:39 +0800, Takeshi Kimura , wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - verified checksum and signature > - ran producer and consumer examples > > Regards, > Takeshi Kimu

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.5 Candidate 2

+1 (Binding) • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 11.0) • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub • Ran docker image(pulsar-all) standalone with pub/sub • Ran License check Best, Mattison On Mar 28, 2023, 22:23 +0800, guo jiwei , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - Checked the signatu

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.4 Candidate 3

+1 (Binding) • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 11.0) • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub • Ran docker image(pulsar-all) standalone with pub/sub • Ran License check Best, Mattison On Mar 27, 2023, 18:58 +0800, 丛搏 , wrote: > +1(binding) > > Please ignore the previous r

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the StreamingDispatcher

Totally agree with it. +1 Best Mattison On Apr 6, 2023, 10:53 +0800, Devin Bost , wrote: > +1 since it can be pulled back up in git history if someone decides to do > something with it to improve it at a later time. > > I also agree that it's a pain to maintain, and I don't know anyone using > it.

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-250: Add proxyVersion to CommandConnect

Sorry for the late response. Why do we need to make the broker aware of the proxy when, by normal software design, we should avoid coupling the concepts in the proxy and the broker? The previous authentication was for historical reasons, but we should not continue to introduce this coupling. T

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.11.1 Candidate-2

+1 (Binding)  • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 17.0)  • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub  • Ran docker image(pulsar-all) standalone with pub/sub  • Ran License check Best, Mattison On Apr 13, 2023, 13:17 +0800, guo jiwei , wrote: > This is the second release candidat

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.4 Candidate 4

+1 (Binding)  • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 11)  • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub  • Ran docker image(pulsar-all) standalone with pub/sub  • Ran License check Best, Mattison On Apr 12, 2023, 17:10 +0800, Xiangying Meng , wrote: > This is the fourth release candi

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.5 Candidate 3

+1 (Binding)  • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 11.0)  • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub  • Ran docker image(pulsar-all) standalone with pub/sub  • Ran License check Best, Mattison On Apr 10, 2023, 15:38 +0800, Cong Zhao , wrote: > This is the third release candidate

[DISCUSS] Sorting out pulsar's internal thread pools

Hello, folks. I would like to start discussing the pulsar internal thread pool sorting out. How did I get this idea? Recently, we met some problems with the BK operation timeout. After investigating, we found an issue that is we share the IO executor(workgroup) with the Bookkeeper client and

[DISCUSS] Is PIP required for small changes in metrics

Hi, All I've got two questions want to discuss with you guys. 1. I am wondering if we should draft PIP for small metrics changes, e.g: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20147 2. We haven't declear we should draft a PIP for configuration changes. why?   Refer to: https://github.com/apache/pu

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client C++ Release 3.2.0 Candidate 3

I found an issue here. https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-cpp/issues/268 Could you help confirm if it is a problem? +1 (binding) • Build from source code on MacOS (12.5) with (Intel Core i7) • Ran pulsar-tests under the tests/ dir Best, Mattison On May 15, 2023, 18:43 +0800, PengHui Li , w

Re: [VOTE] PIP-265: PR-based system for managing and reviewing PIPs

+1 (binding) Best, Mattison On May 15, 2023, 15:38 +0800, Enrico Olivelli , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > The proposal makes sense to me. > Let's try > > Thanks for carrying on with this initative > Enrico > > Il giorno lun 15 mag 2023 alle ore 05:23 Max Xu ha > scritto: > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Python Release 3.2.0 Candidate 1

+1 (binding) - Start the standalone (master) - Start consumer (python3 ./examples/consumer.py) - Start producer (python3 ./examples/producer.py ) Best, Mattison On Jun 2, 2023, 23:09 +0800, Matteo Merli , wrote: > +1 > > * Checked signature > * Installed and tested with Mac & linux wheels > > > M

Re: [VOTE] PIP-276: Add metric `pulsar_topic_load_times

+1(binding) Best, Mattison On 20 Jun 2023 at 10:45 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:40 AM Yubiao Feng > wrote: > > > Voting +1 (non-binding) > > > > Thanks > > Yubiao Feng > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 5:21 PM Asaf Mesika wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] PIP-278: Support pluggable topic compaction service

+1 (binding) Best, Mattison On 26 Jun 2023 at 10:01 +0800, Cong Zhao , wrote: > Hello, community: > > This thread is to start a vote for PIP-278: Support pluggable topic > compaction service. > > Discussion thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ox2bot3p9j9fydqkw3v5gt5twc8jslvd > > PIP PR: http

Re: [DISCUSS] Make system topics non-partitioned by default

Hi, Michael I've got several questions and hope you can help answer. Why not disable auto-creation for system topics? and then we can create it before the broker start. which can avoid introduce complex meaning of `allowAutoTopicCreationType` configuration. Plus, why we chose the non-partition

Re: [DISCUSS] About cherry-picking `Use Ubuntu 22.04 for Pulsar images (#20475)`

Agree with cherry-pick PR. Best Mattison On 26 Jun 2023 at 17:10 +0800, guo jiwei , wrote: > Hello community: > For this patch Use Ubuntu 22.04 for Pulsar images > , we need some ideas about > cherry-picking to other branches. > > > Regards > Jiwei Guo

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.11.0 Candidate 1

+1 (binding) • Downloaded the source code. • Built from the source code on macOS. • Ran make test. • Ran all of the examples with pulsar-3.0.0. Best, Mattison On 10 Jul 2023 at 11:37 +0800, Rui Fu , wrote: > +1 > > - verified checksum and signature > - run producer and consumer examples > > Best

RE: Re: [VOTE] PIP-280 : Refactor CLI Argument Parsing Logic for Measurement Units using JCommander's custom converter

+1(binding) Mattison On 10 Jul 2023 at 19:55 +0800, Joo Hyuk Kim , wrote: > Thanks, > JooHyuk. > > On 2023/07/10 00:24:20 Zili Chen wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On 2023/07/07 09:25:22 Joo Hyuk Kim wrote: > > > > Hi community, > > > > > > > > This PIP has received a couple of approvals in gi

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.11.2 Candidate-1

+1 (binding) • Built from source. ( maven 3.9.3, JDK 17.0.7 ) • Ran standalone with basic publishing & consuming. • Passed binary license check. • Ran pulsar-all docker image with basic publishing & consuming. Best, Mattison On 16 Jul 2023 at 10:39 +0800, guo jiwei , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > -

[DISCUSS] Support key filter for Table View

Hi, Folks I would like to follow the PIP process to start the discussion of PIP-283. Please don't hesitate to leave your concern and suggestions. Best, Mattison

Re: [DISCUSS] Support key filter for Table View

Sorry, I wrote this email through another application. It seems the link does not support well in the apache pony mail. I'll put the link over here. PIP-283: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20827 Best, Mattison On 18 Jul 2023 at 09:50 +0800, mattisonc...@gmail.com, wrote: > > Hi, Folks >

[DISCUSS] PIP-284 Refactor SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService by TableView

Hi, Folks I would like to follow the PIP process to start the discussion of PIP-284[1]. Please don't hesitate to leave your concern and suggestions. Best, Mattison [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20828

Re: [DISCUSS] Support key filter for Table View

I've extended the interface to allow filtering by key and value. Thanks Mattison On 18 Jul 2023 at 09:50 +0800, mattisonc...@gmail.com, wrote: > > Hi, Folks > > I would like to follow the PIP process to start the discussion of PIP-283. > > Please don't hesitate to leave your concern and suggestion

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 3.0.1 Candidate 2

+1 (binding) • Built from source with JDK 17.0.7 and Maven 3.9.3 on Intel MacOS • Ran produce/consume test • Ran license check • Ran produce/consume test based on docker server Best, Mattison On 4 Aug 2023 at 02:24 +0800, Yunze Xu , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - Verified the signatures and checksu

Re: [VERIFY] Pulsar Release 3.1.0 Candidate 1

Hi, Zike Yang We can rebuild this image to support multiple versions. But I think we don't need to start another candidate. Also, I wonder if it's ok to give -1 here. We should only set this item to required if the new release process has been updated. Plus, we should add this part to the buil

Re: [VERIFY] Pulsar Release 3.1.0 Candidate 1

Hi, Dave I see. Thanks! Best, Mattison On 4 Aug 2023 at 11:18 +0800, Dave Fisher , wrote: > Hi - > > Since this is a VERiFY then the -1 with a technical reason is good data for > the Release Manager. They can decide when there is enough feedback before > cutting a new release. > > Good work! >

Re: [VERIFY] Pulsar Release 3.1.0 Candidate 1

Hi, Zike The new candidate docker image has been uploaded. Could you please help review it again? Thanks! pulsar: https://hub.docker.com/layers/mattison/pulsar/3.1.0-no-git/images/sha256-157aa5501a5d7fedb843e4e45d808c7276887d89b3bd5ffe22a41bbec9d1da3c?context=explore pulsar-all: https://hub.d

Re: [VOTE] Accept pulsar-admin-go as part of the Apache Pulsar project

+1 (binding) Best, Mattison On 5 Aug 2023 at 20:05 +0800, Yunze Xu , wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Yunze > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 12:15 PM tison wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start a vote thread for accepting pulsar-admin-go[1] as part of > > the Apache Pulsar project. pulsar-adm

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 3.1.0 Candidate 1

+1 (binding) ``` Apache Maven 3.9.3 (21122926829f1ead511c958d89bd2f672198ae9f) Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.9.3/libexec Java version: 17.0.7, vendor: Homebrew, runtime: /usr/local/Cellar/openjdk@17/17.0.7/libexec/openjdk.jdk/Contents/Home Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8 O

Re: [VOTE] PIP-293: Delete config `disableBrokerInterceptors`

+1 (binding) Best, Mattison On 15 Aug 2023 at 16:24 +0800, guo jiwei , wrote: > Hi dev, > There is a config in ServiceConfiguration called > `disableBrokerInterceptors` introduced by #8157 > , it looks to disable the > broker interceptor, but commented

[VOTE] PIP-284 Replace reader with table view in the topic policy service

Hello, Guys Since there are no concerns in the discussion mail, I'd like to start voting for this PIP. The PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21033 Best, Mattison

Re: [DISCUSS] Unload Rate Limiting during Graceful Shutdown of Pulsar

Hi, I agree with this change to improve the stability of the pulsar cluster. Just one concern. it's better to move this discussion to a new PIP. because you wanna introduce a new broker configuration. `brokerShutdownMaxNumberOfGracefulBundleUnloadPerMinute` FYI: https://github.com/apache/puls

Re: [DISCUSS] New label type: category/*

+1. Quality and performance are now the most essential parts of Apache Pulsar. Adding a clear label to help manage and measure would be great. Best, Mattison On 21 Aug 2023 at 15:30 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > > These tags are clear. Is there any existing document for what the > labels represe