Hi Jun, On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 6:28 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Also, KIP-392 > implemented HWM propagation without adding the HWM field in the fetch > request. Instead, the leader remembers the last propagated HWM to a > follower.
I thought about this when designing the feature, mainly to avoid having to write a KIP. The issue with using that "last sent high-watermark" is that that solution assumes that FETCH responses are reliably received by the client replica. > Is that easier to do in KRaft? If so, it's slightly better to > avoid adding the HWM field in the fetch request since it's irrelevant to > consumer clients. In the long term it may be beneficial to have two replication RPCs. One for consumers (FETCH) and for brokers (e.g. REPLICATE) and maybe even another one for KRaft. Thanks, -- -José
