codelipenghui commented on code in PR #22762:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22762#discussion_r1615383124
##########
pulsar-client-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/admin/cli/CmdTopics.java:
##########
@@ -1097,10 +1099,23 @@ private class PeekMessages extends CliCommand {
@Option(names = { "-n", "--count" }, description = "Number of messages
(default 1)", required = false)
private int numMessages = 1;
+ @Option(names = { "-ssm", "--show-server-marker" },
+ description = "Enables the display of internal server write
markers.", required = false)
+ private boolean showServerMarker = false;
+
+ @Option(names = { "-sta", "--show-txn-aborted" },
+ description = "Enables the display of messages from aborted
transactions.", required = false)
+ private boolean showTxnAborted = false;
+
+ @Option(names = { "-stu", "--show-txn-uncommitted" },
+ description = "Enables the display of messages from
uncommitted transactions.", required = false)
+ private boolean showTxnUncommitted = false;
Review Comment:
> Are there more considerations? For example, in the future, transactions
might involve more isolation features.
Yes, the major consideration is the consistency in the future. There are
some discussions under the mailing list, e.g.
https://lists.apache.org/thread/8ny0qtp7m9qcdbvnfjdvpnkc4c5ssyld. We'd better
avoid using different terms for transaction messages.
> Although the name "--transaction-isolation-level" is quite standard, but
it seems to be inconsistent with the other two parameters.
We can replace `--show-txn-aborted` and `--show-txn-uncommitted` with
"--transaction-isolation-level".
For `--show-server-marker`, I think it should be fine.
--
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]
