Hi Andrew,
I have modified the kip to throw IllegalArgumentException on unsupported
ack type.

Regards,
Sushant Mahajan

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025, 18:35 Sanskar Jhajharia,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey Sushant,
> Thanks for the KIP. Overall, the KIP looks like a good enhancement to the
> Share Consumer interface and helps unlock a significant use case. A couple
> of questions or suggestions:
>
> SJ1: If a record is a "poison pill" (a record that consistently causes a
> consumer to require a very long processing timeout), a malicious or buggy
> consumer could be programmed to continuously renew the lock to prevent it
> from ever reaching a failure state on the consumer and being moved to a
> REJECTED or ARCHIVED state in the broker. Unlimited renewals can create a
> self-inflicted, persistent Head-of-Line (HOL) blocking issue for the entire
> share consumer group. Are there broker-side limits (e.g., a maximum number
> of renewals or a maximum cumulative lock duration) that can be configured
> to force a difficult record to eventually transition?
>
> SJ2: This is somehow linked to the comment `SJ1`. Would it make sense to
> improve visibility into lock renewal activity for better debugging and
> operational awareness? For example, exposing broker-level metrics or
> diagnostics that help operators identify cases of frequent or ineffective
> renewals could be valuable in understanding consumer or record-level
> issues. These metrics may be essential for operators to debug long-running
> jobs, identify bottlenecks, and properly configure consumer timeouts.
>
> Regards,
> Sanskar
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 3:46 PM Sushant Mahajan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I’d like to start the discussion for KIP-1222: Acquisition lock timeout
> > renewal in share consumer explicit mode.
> >
> > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19742
> > KIP Wiki:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1222%3A+Acquisition+lock+timeout+renewal+in+share+consumer+explicit+mode
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sushant Mahajan
> >
>

Reply via email to