+1 (binding) I also think `log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms` is clearer. As an aside, I did notice that the topic level config for `log.segment.delete.delay.ms` (mentioned by Ewen) is `file.delete.delay.ms`, which seems a bit inconsistent.
Ismael On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Agreed that the log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms is probably a better name, > and consistent with log.segment.delete.delay.ms. Checked configs for other > suffixes that seemed reasonable and despite only appearing in that one > broker config, it seems the best match. > > -Ewen > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > I'm +1 on the concept. > > > > As with others I think the core challenge is to express this in an > > intuitive way, and carry the same terminology across the docs, the > configs, > > and docstrings for the configs. Pictures would help. > > > > -Jay > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:54 PM, James Cheng <wushuja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure what are the rules for who is allowed to vote, but I'm: > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) on the proposal > > > > > > I agree that the "log.cleaner.min.compaction.lag.ms" name is a little > > > confusing. > > > > > > I like Becket's "log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms", or something > similar. > > > > > > The KIP describes it as the portion of the topic "that will remain > > > uncompacted", so if you're open to alternate names: > > > > > > "log.cleaner.uncompacted.range.ms" > > > "log.cleaner.uncompacted.head.ms" (Except that I always get "log tail" > > > and "log head" mixed up...) > > > "log.cleaner.uncompacted.retention.ms" (Will it be confusing to have > the > > > word "retention" in non-time-based topics?) > > > > > > I just thought of something: what happens to the value of " > > > log.cleaner.delete.retention.ms"? Does it still have the same meaning > as > > > before? Does the timer start when log compaction happens (as it > currently > > > does), so in reality, tombstones will only be removed from the log some > > > time after (log.cleaner.min.compaction.lag.ms + > > > log.cleaner.delete.retention.ms)? > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > On May 24, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) on the proposal. Just a minor suggestion. > > > > > > > > I am wondering should we change the config name to " > > > > log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms"? The first glance at the > > configuration > > > > name is a little confusing. I was thinking do we have a "max" lag? > And > > is > > > > this "lag" a bad thing? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for responding to all my original concerns in the discussion > > > thread. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Eric Wasserman < > > > eric.wasser...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> I would like to begin voting on KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point > > > >>> Configurable > > > >>> > > > >>> KIP-58 is here: < > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-58+-+Make+Log+Compaction+Point+Configurable > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> The Jira ticket KAFKA-1981 Make log compaction point configurable > > > >>> is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1981> > > > >>> > > > >>> The original pull request is here: < > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1168> > > > >>> (this includes configurations for size and message count lags that > > will > > > >> be > > > >>> removed per discussion of KIP-58). > > > >>> > > > >>> The vote will run for 72 hours. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Ewen >
