If there are no more questions or concerns, I will start a vote thread tomorrow.
Thanks, Dhruvil On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:59 PM Dhruvil Shah <dhru...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Nikhil, > > Thanks for looking at the KIP. The kind of race condition you mention is > not possible as stray partition detection is done synchronously while > handling the LeaderAndIsrRequest. In other words, we atomically evaluate > the partitions the broker must host and the extra partitions it is hosting > and schedule deletions based on that. > > One possible shortcoming of the KIP is that we do not have the ability to > detect a stray partition if the topic has been recreated since. We will > have the ability to disambiguate between different generations of a > partition with KIP-516. > > Thanks, > Dhruvil > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:40 AM Nikhil Bhatia <nik...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> Thanks Dhruvil, the proposal looks reasonable to me. >> >> is there a potential of a race between a new topic being assigned to the >> same node that is still performing a cleanup of the stray partition ? >> Topic >> ID will definitely solve this issue. >> >> Thanks >> Nikhil >> >> On 2020/01/06 04:30:20, Dhruvil Shah <d...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > Here is the link to the KIP:> >> > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-550%3A+Mechanism+to+Delete+Stray+Partitions+on+Broker >> > >> >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dhruvil Shah <dh...@confluent.io> >> wrote:> >> > >> > > Hi all, I would like to kick off discussion for KIP-550 which proposes >> a> >> > > mechanism to detect and delete stray partitions on a broker. >> Suggestions> >> > > and feedback are welcome.> >> > >> >> > > - Dhruvil> >> > >> >> > >> >
