Gordon, Do you have an example where the current default behaviour makes sense and it doesnt cause unexpected problems? Or an example where someone might reasonably expect the current behaviour instead of the newly suggested one.
If we have such cases I would agree lets keep it as is. If we cant come up with anything reasonable I vote for changing the default. Gyula On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:31 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Feng, > > Thanks for working on a fix for this. > I gave you contributor permission on JIRA. > > Before you jump right onto the code: > do we have an agreement already on whether we change the default behaviour > directly, > or add a configuration option (e.g. add a > `filterRestoredPartitionOffsetState()` method on the consumer) to enable > the filtering? > > I'm still slightly in favor of keeping the default behaviour for the > current Kafka connector, > and only change that default for the upcoming rework of the connector. > > Cheers, > Gordon > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:13 PM Feng LI <nemoking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Aljoscha, > > > > Thanks for sharing the ticket, I think it makes sense to reopen the > ticket. > > (I can work on the fix for this, should be a small patch, just add a > filter > > when restoring Kafka partitions with those discovered partitions). > > > > (btw. Can I have a contributor access for jira, my username is f.li) > > > > Cheers, > > Feng > > > > Le jeu. 14 févr. 2019 à 17:07, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> a > > écrit : > > > > > I think these two Jira issues are relevant here: > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10342 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10342> > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9303 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9303> > > > > > > The second one only because it’s slightly related. The first one is > > > actually exactly this thread. > > > > > > I was against changing this behaviour in the Jira but I can now see > that > > > this is quite likely an issue. > > > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > On 13. Feb 2019, at 18:55, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I agree that it’s very confusing if you explicitly specify the topics > > > that > > > > are to be confusing and what happens is different. > > > > > > > > I would almost consider this to be a bug , can’t see any reasonable > use > > > > case just hard to debug problems . > > > > > > > > Having an option would be a good start but I would rather treat this > > as a > > > > bug. > > > > > > > > Gyula > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 18:27, Feng LI <nemoking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello there, > > > >> > > > >> I’m just wondering if there are real world use cases for maintaining > > > this > > > >> default behavior. It’s a bit counter intuitive and sometimes results > > in > > > >> serious production issues. ( We had a similar issue when changing > the > > > topic > > > >> name, and resulting reading every message twice - both from the old > > one > > > and > > > >> from the new). > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Feng > > > >> Le mer. 13 févr. 2019 à 17:56, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > > tzuli...@apache.org> > > > a > > > >> écrit : > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> Partition offsets stored in state will always be respected when the > > > >>> consumer is restored from checkpoints / savepoints. > > > >>> AFAIK, this seems to have been the behaviour for quite some time > now > > > >> (since > > > >>> FlinkKafkaConsumer08). > > > >>> > > > >>> I think in the past there were some discussion to at least allow > some > > > way > > > >>> to ignore restored partition offsets. > > > >>> One way to enable this is to filter the restored partition offsets > > > based > > > >> on > > > >>> the configured list of specified topics / topic regex pattern in > the > > > >>> current execution. This should work, since this can only be > modified > > > when > > > >>> restoring from savepoints (i.e. manual restores). > > > >>> To avoid breaking the current behaviour, we can maybe add a > > > >>> `filterRestoredPartitionOffsetState()` configuration on the > consumer, > > > >> which > > > >>> by default is disabled to match the current behaviour. > > > >>> > > > >>> What do you think? > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers, > > > >>> Gordon > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:59 PM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have run into a weird issue which I could have sworn that it > > wouldnt > > > >>>> happen :D > > > >>>> I feel there was a discussion about this in the past but maybe im > > > >> wrong, > > > >>>> but I hope someone can point me to a ticket. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Lets say you create a kafka consumer that consumes (t1,t2,t3), you > > > >> take a > > > >>>> savepoint and deploy a new version that only consumes (t1). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The restore logic now still starts to consume (t1,t2,t3) which > feels > > > >> very > > > >>>> unintuitive as those were explicitly removed from the list. It is > > also > > > >>> hard > > > >>>> to debug as the topics causing the problem are not defined > anywhere > > in > > > >>> your > > > >>>> job, configs etc. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Has anyone run into this issue? Should we change this default > > > behaviour > > > >>> or > > > >>>> at least have an option to not do this? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Gyula > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
