thetumbled commented on PR #21908: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21908#issuecomment-1895068028
> I think I have introduced a bad configuration name in #11206. Actually, it was the timeout for an entry read. > > IMO, we should have a new configuration name and deprecate the existing one. I don't think it's reasonable to have a timeout for the whole phase one loop. After the first time the phase one loop get timeout, the subsequent phase one loop will almost always get timeout with more published messages unless changing phase one loop timeout. I agree. I have introduced a new configuration name and deprecate the existing one. PTAL, thanks. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
