Hi Sean, thanks for the KIP. LM1: About group.initial.rebalance.delay.ms, I expect the interaction with the interval is just as described for the streams initial delay and interval, correct? Should we clarify that in the KIP (it only mentions the streams case)
LM2: The KIP refers to batching assignment re-calculations triggered by member subscriptions changes, but I expect the batching mechanism applies the same when the assignment re-calculation is triggered by metadata changes (i.e topic/partition created or deleted), without any HB changing subscriptions. Is my understanding correct? LM3: About this section: "*When there is an in-flight assignor run for the group, there is no new target assignment. We will trigger the next assignor run on a future heartbeat.*". I expect that the next assignor run will be triggered on the next HB from this or from any other member of the group, received after the interval expires (without the members re-sending the subscription change). Is my expectation correct? If so, it may be worth clarifying in the KIP to avoid confusion with client-side implementations. Thanks! Lianet On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 1:23 AM Sean Quah via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > sq01: We also have to update the SyncGroup request handling to only return > REBALANCE_IN_PROGRESS when the member's epoch is behind the target > assignment epoch, not the group epoch. Thanks to Dongnuo for pointing this > out. > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 5:40 PM Dongnuo Lyu via dev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Sean, thanks for the KIP! I have a few questions as follows. > > > > dl01: Could we mention the handling when the group metadata or topic > > partition metadata is changed or deleted during the async assignor run? > > > > dl02: This might be a question for the overall coordinator executor - do > we > > have plans to apply an explicit size limit to the executor queue? If many > > groups trigger offloaded assignments simultaneously, should we apply some > > backpressure for protection? > > > > Also resonate with dj05, for small groups default ` > > min.assignor.interval.ms` > > to 5s might not be necessary, so not sure if we want to make the batch > > assignment default. Or it might be good to have a per group enablement. > > > > Thanks > > Dongnuo > > >
