Hey Michael,
I'm not quite sure that works as that would translate ALL null values to
tombstones, even for non-compacted topics that use null as an acceptable
value sent by the producer and expected by the consumer.
-Jay
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com>
wrote:
> Hi Ewen,
>
> I think the easiest way to show this is with code.
>
> As you can see we keep the existing behaviour for code/binaries calling
> the pre-existing constructors, whereby if the value is null the tombstone
> is set to true.
>
> Regards
> Mike
>
>
>
> /**
> * Creates a record with a specified timestamp to be sent to a
> specified topic and partition
> *
> * @param topic The topic the record will be appended to
> * @param partition The partition to which the record should be sent
> * @param timestamp The timestamp of the record
> * @param tombstone if the record should be treated as a tombstone if
> the topic is compacted
> * @param key The key that will be included in the record
> * @param value The record contents
> */
> public ProducerRecord(String topic, Integer partition, Boolean
> tombstone, Long timestamp, K key, V value) {
> if (topic == null)
> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Topic cannot be null.");
> if (timestamp != null && timestamp < 0)
> throw new IllegalArgumentException(
> String.format("Invalid timestamp: %d. Timestamp should
> always be non-negative or null.", timestamp));
> if (partition != null && partition < 0)
> throw new IllegalArgumentException(
> String.format("Invalid partition: %d. Partition number
> should always be non-negative or null.", partition));
> if (!tombstone && value == null){
> throw new IllegalArgumentException(
> String.format("Tombstone must be true if null value"));
> }
> this.topic = topic;
> this.partition = partition;
> this.tombstone = tombstone;
> this.key = key;
> this.value = value;
> this.timestamp = timestamp;
> }
>
> public ProducerRecord(String topic, Integer partition, Long timestamp,
> K key, V value) {
> this(topic, partition, value == null, timestamp, key, value);
> }
> ________________________________________
> From: Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io>
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:45 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag
>
> It seemed like this was addressed in the migration section, wasn't it? The
> V2 vs V3 requests and the fact that the broker will downgrade the message
> format (losing zero copy) if you issues a V2 request to a broker using V3
> format handles compatibility, does it not? The existing consumers won't see
> the extra metadata in the value, but they will get a null instead and treat
> it as a tombstone. Certainly there is a performance impact, but it seemed
> compatible.
>
> I'm worried about this though:
>
>
> - *NOTE *: With the new version of producer client using ProduceRequest
> V3 (magic byte = 2), a non tombstone (tombstone bit not set) and null
> value
> should not be allowed as the older version of consumer using
> FetchRequest
> V2 will think of this as a tombstone when its actually not.
>
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding, this ends up breaking binary compatibility for
> the Java API. It sounds like this suggests that passing a null value to the
> existing ProducerRecord constructors would generate an exception since you
> didn't explicitly enable the tombstone (via whatever new constructor is
> provided). But that means you can't swap in a newer client jar without
> recompiling and get the same behavior if your app deletes keys using the
> current approach because your app will start throwing exceptions. Maybe
> this is a tradeoff we're ok with, but we've tried pretty hard to avoid
> breaking compatibility like this so far -- it makes picking up bug fixes in
> the clients harder for users of frameworks that have to pin to earlier
> default versions for compatibility.
>
> But then later the KIP says:
>
>
> - The old constructors for ProducerRecord without this parameter will be
> kept but updated so that their default behaviour if setting null value
> will
> be the tombstone will be set to true to keep existing behaviour.
>
>
> So maybe I am misinterpreting something.
>
> And just a nit re: motivation section, item 6 would be clearer for a union
> schema with null (or optional schemas in other formats), e.g. [null,
> string], in which case losing the schema truly is losing information
> (whereas null is already the only valid value for a pure null schema).
>
> -Ewen
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jay,
> >
> > Good point this detail is missing in the KIP write up. Ive added this
> now.
> >
> > Essentially simply just upgrading the clients we do not expect any client
> > app code change needed.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 10:51 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > The compatibility section goes through the migration path, but isn't the
> > bigger compatibility issue with existing apps? There are many (probably
> > thousands) of apps in production that use this feature and send null to
> > mean delete. It seems like this would break compatibility with them, and
> > they would have to be rewritten to right?
> >
> > -Jay
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jun,
> > >
> > > 4) On v3 we honour the tombstone. As such we expect it to be set
> > correctly
> > > as per the KIP.
> > >
> > > 4.1) why would we want to produce an error when its v3? This is the
> exact
> > > purpose to support non-null tombstone’s
> > > 4.2) again here im unclear on the question on the v3, produce request
> we
> > > expect the tombstone flag to be set correctly.
> > >
> > > 4.4) compaction only occurs on compacted topics, the bit makes no
> > > difference and not looked at on un-compacted (time/size based
> eviction).
> > >
> > >
> > > On 06/12/2016, 20:08, "Jun Rao" <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Michael,
> > >
> > > 4. Then, I think I misunderstood this point. Could you document the
> > > following points in the wiki?
> > > 4.1 If producer V3 sets tombstone, but provides a non-null value,
> > does
> > > the
> > > send() get an error or does the producer automatically set the
> value
> > to
> > > null?
> > > 4.2 If producer V3 doesn't set tombstone, but provides a null
> value,
> > > does
> > > the send() get an error or does the producer automatically sets the
> > > tombstone?
> > > 4.3 Does the broker only expect messages that (a) have no tombstone
> > and
> > > non-null value; (b) have tombstone and null value and reject the
> > > messages
> > > with an error code otherwise?
> > > 4.4 Do 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 depend on whether the topic is compacted on
> > not?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > michael.pea...@ig.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not at all. This only acts on compacted topics just as what
> occurs
> > > today
> > > >
> > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 6:25:28 PM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Michael,
> > > >
> > > > 4. Hmm, does that mean the new client library can never send a
> null
> > > message
> > > > even to a regular topic? This seems like a change of the existing
> > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jun
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > >
> > > > > Re 4) That's because we expect the tombstone value to be set
> > > correctly if
> > > > > message bit is 2, as such if an older client sends in on old
> > > message the
> > > > > message is upcast and the bit is set correctly. And such no
> > longer
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > check the value. Mayuresh can you confirm my thinking and
> > > understanding
> > > > of
> > > > > what we've discussed?
> > > > >
> > > > > The second point I understand what you're getting at now my
> > > apologies.
> > > > Yes
> > > > > this makes sense to save on touching the message, if we're the
> > > only kip
> > > > > going in, in this release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > From: Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:22:13 PM
> > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Is this updated in the wiki? The text "If the magic byte on
> > > message is
> > > > > 2, the broker should use the tombstone bit for log compaction."
> > > doesn't
> > > > > seem to have changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. My point is that if we change the message format just for
> this
> > > KIP, we
> > > > > should consider whether it's worth optimizing the down
> conversion
> > > path
> > > > > (i.e., decide whether a conversion is needed by just looking at
> > the
> > > > > tombstone bit in the wrapper message) since tombstone will be
> > used
> > > > rarely.
> > > > > However, if the message format change here is combined with
> other
> > > KIPs,
> > > > > then this optimization likely won't be needed. The latter
> > probably
> > > makes
> > > > > the code simpler. Jiangjie, Mayuresh, what do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Other than those, +1 from me,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jun
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do we have your vote on this now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any other concerns?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > From: Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 1:37:45 AM
> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have updated. Thanks again for the feedback.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree yes we should align up when it gets to that, I assume
> > > you’ve
> > > > > flagged
> > > > > > the same in the other KIP?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think for now let’s get this KIP approved, then we can
> start
> > > the work
> > > > > to
> > > > > > get an initial PR, then we can discuss how to align the two
> if
> > > needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 02/12/2016, 18:26, "Jun Rao" <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For 2), this is fine. Could you update the KIP wiki to
> make
> > > this
> > > > and
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > points clearer? Other than that, the KIP looks good to
> me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An orthogonal thing is that there are other KIPs such as
> > > KIP-98
> > > > that
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > intend to change the message format. If they all get
> > > approved, we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > think about whether it's better to just bump up the magic
> > > byte once
> > > > > to
> > > > > > incorporate multiple format changes like we did in
> > > KIP-31/KIP-32.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jun
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jao
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the response. Sorry for slow reply, both
> with
> > > personal
> > > > > > sickness
> > > > > > > and also battling some critical issues encountered
> since
> > > > upgrading
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > 0.10.1.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Thans for spotting, Document error where we branched
> > > this KIP
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > KIP-82, will get that removed.
> > > > > > > 2) Intent is to do this just at the record message
> level.
> > > > > > > 3) Thanks for spotting, Will ensure this is corrected.
> > > > > > > 4) As per discussion thread we will support tombstone +
> > > null
> > > > value,
> > > > > > > tombstone + non null value, no tombstone + null value.
> > > > > > > 5) I believe this was in the discussion thread,
> @Mayuresh
> > > is this
> > > > > > > something we’ve overlooked? I thought we would down
> > > convert and
> > > > > > remove the
> > > > > > > value so the old consumer had existing behavior, or is
> > > there
> > > > > > something we
> > > > > > > haven’t thought about?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 30/11/2016, 18:12, "Jun Rao" <j...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. The message format change contains
> "HeadersLength
> > > > Headers".
> > > > > > Is that
> > > > > > > intended?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. For compressed messageset, is the tombstone bit
> > > only set
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > shallow
> > > > > > > level? Do we always leave that bit in the wrapper
> > > message
> > > > > unset?
> > > > > > An
> > > > > > > alternative is to set the tombstone bit in the
> > wrapper
> > > if at
> > > > > > least one
> > > > > > > inner message has the tombstone bit set. This makes
> > > things a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > complicated, but we could potentially exploit that
> > for
> > > > > > optimizing down
> > > > > > > conversion. For example, we only need to convert
> > > messages
> > > > with
> > > > > > magic 2
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > magic 1 if the wrapper's tombstone bit is set
> > > (conversion is
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > from magic 2 to magic 0). Not sure if the
> > optimization
> > > is
> > > > worth
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > complexity though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. The referencing of the new version of
> > > > > > ProducerRequest/FetchRequest
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > inconsistent (v4 vs v3). Since our convention
> starts
> > at
> > > > version
> > > > > > at 0, I
> > > > > > > think the new version would be 3.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. "If the magic byte on message is 2, the broker
> > > should use
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > tombstone
> > > > > > > bit for log compaction." What about null value? My
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > null value will be treated the same as setting the
> > > tombstone
> > > > > bit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. For the migration path, it would be useful to
> > > describe the
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > > conversion path to consumers (i.e., brokers on
> > message
> > > format
> > > > > > 0.10.2
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > consumers on older version).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have been discussing in the below thread and
> > final
> > > > changes
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > made to the KIP wiki based on these discussions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We would now like to put to the vote the
> following
> > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 87+-+
> > > > > > > > Add+Compaction+Tombstone+Flag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This kip is for having a distinct compaction
> > > attribute
> > > > > > “tombstone”
> > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > instead of relying on null value, allowing
> non-null
> > > value
> > > > > > delete
> > > > > > > messages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Many thanks,
> > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 22/11/2016, 15:52, "Michael Pearce" <
> > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Mayuresh,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LGTM. Ive just made one small adjustment
> > > updating the
> > > > > wire
> > > > > > > protocol to
> > > > > > > > show the magic byte bump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we think we’re good to put to a vote? Is
> > > there any
> > > > > > other bits
> > > > > > > > needing discussion?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 21/11/2016, 18:26, "Mayuresh Gharat" <
> > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have updated the migration section of
> the
> > > KIP.
> > > > Can
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > take a look?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Mayuresh
> > > Gharat <
> > > > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That whilst sending tombstone and non
> > null
> > > value,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > can expect
> > > > > > > > > only to receive the non-null message
> only
> > > in step
> > > > > > (3) is
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > correct?
> > > > > > > > > ---> I do agree with you here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Becket, Ismael : can you guys review
> the
> > > > migration
> > > > > > plan
> > > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > above using
> > > > > > > > > magic byte?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:58 AM,
> Michael
> > > Pearce <
> > > > > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Many thanks for this Mayuresh. I don't
> > > have any
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I assume we should state:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> That whilst sending tombstone and non
> > null
> > > > value,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > can expect
> > > > > > > > >> only to receive the non-null message
> > only
> > > in
> > > > step
> > > > > > (3) is
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > correct?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Cheers
> > > > > > > > >> Mike
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Sent using OWA for iPhone
> > > > > > > > >> ______________________________
> > __________
> > > > > > > > >> From: Mayuresh Gharat <
> > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016
> > 5:18:41
> > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-87 - Add
> > > Compaction
> > > > > > Tombstone
> > > > > > > Flag
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Ismael,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the explanation.
> > > > > > > > >> Specially I like this part where in
> you
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > rid of the
> > > > > > > > >> older null value support for log
> > > compaction
> > > > later
> > > > > > on,
> > > > > > > here :
> > > > > > > > >> We can't change semantics of the
> message
> > > format
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > a long
> > > > > > > > >> transition period. And we can't rely
> > > > > > > > >> on people reading documentation or
> > acting
> > > on a
> > > > > > warning for
> > > > > > > > something so
> > > > > > > > >> fundamental. As such, my take is that
> we
> > > need to
> > > > > > bump the
> > > > > > > magic
> > > > > > > > byte. The
> > > > > > > > >> good news is
> > > > > > > > >> that we don't have to support all
> > versions
> > > > > forever.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > said that we
> > > > > > > > >> will support direct upgrades for 2
> > years.
> > > That
> > > > > > means that
> > > > > > > > message format
> > > > > > > > >> version n could, in theory, be
> removed 2
> > > years
> > > > > > after the
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > introduced.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Just a heads up, I would like to
> mention
> > > that
> > > > even
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > bumping magic
> > > > > > > > >> byte, we will *NOT* loose zero copy as
> > in
> > > the
> > > > > > client(x+1)
> > > > > > > in my
> > > > > > > > >> explanation
> > > > > > > > >> above will convert internally a null
> > > value to
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > tombstone
> > > > > > > > bit set and
> > > > > > > > >> a tombstone bit set to have a null
> value
> > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > internally and by
> > > > > > > > >> the time we move to version (x+2), the
> > > clients
> > > > > > would have
> > > > > > > > upgraded.
> > > > > > > > >> Obviously if we support a request from
> > > > > consumer(x),
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > loose zero
> > > > > > > > >> copy
> > > > > > > > >> but that is the same case with magic
> > byte.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> But if magic byte bump makes life
> easier
> > > for
> > > > > > transition
> > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > > >> reasons that you explained, I am OK
> with
> > > it
> > > > since
> > > > > > we are
> > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > to meet the
> > > > > > > > >> end goal down the road :)
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On a side note can we update the doc
> > here
> > > on
> > > > magic
> > > > > > byte
> > > > > > > to say
> > > > > > > > that "*it
> > > > > > > > >> should be bumped whenever the message
> > > format is
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > or the
> > > > > > > > >> interpretation of message format
> (usage
> > > of the
> > > > > > reserved
> > > > > > > bits as
> > > > > > > > well) is
> > > > > > > > >> changed*".
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Here is the update plan that we
> > discussed
> > > > offline
> > > > > > > yesterday :
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Currently the magic-byte which
> > > corresponds to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > "message.format.version"
> > > > > > > > >> is set to 1.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 1) On broker it will be set to 1
> > > initially.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 2) When a producer client sends a
> > message
> > > with
> > > > > > magic-byte
> > > > > > > = 2,
> > > > > > > > since the
> > > > > > > > >> broker is on magic-byte = 1, we will
> > down
> > > > convert
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > means if the
> > > > > > > > >> tombstone bit is set, the value will
> be
> > > set to
> > > > > > null. A
> > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > >> understanding magic-byte = 1, will
> still
> > > work
> > > > with
> > > > > > this. A
> > > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > >> working
> > > > > > > > >> with magic-byte =2 will also be able
> to
> > > > understand
> > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> understands the tombstone.
> > > > > > > > >> Now there is still the question of
> > > supporting a
> > > > > > > non-tombstone
> > > > > > > > and null
> > > > > > > > >> value from producer client with
> > > magic-byte = 2.*
> > > > > (I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > not sure
> > > > > > > > if we
> > > > > > > > >> should support this. Ismael/Becket can
> > > comment
> > > > > > here)*
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 3) When almost all the clients have
> > > upgraded,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > message.format.version
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> the broker can be changed to 2, where
> in
> > > the
> > > > down
> > > > > > > conversion in
> > > > > > > > the above
> > > > > > > > >> step will not happen. If at this point
> > we
> > > get a
> > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > request from a
> > > > > > > > >> older consumer, we might have to down
> > > convert
> > > > > where
> > > > > > in we
> > > > > > > loose
> > > > > > > > zero copy,
> > > > > > > > >> but these cases should be rare.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Becket can you review this plan and
> add
> > > more
> > > > > > details if I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> missed/wronged something, before we
> put
> > > it on
> > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Mayuresh
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:07 PM,
> > Michael
> > > > Pearce <
> > > > > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks guys, for discussing this
> > > offline and
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > consensus.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > So its clear for myself and others
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > proposed now
> > > > > > > (i
> > > > > > > > think i
> > > > > > > > >> > understand, but want to make sure)
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Could i ask either directly update
> the
> > > kip to
> > > > > > detail the
> > > > > > > > migration
> > > > > > > > >> > strategy, or (re-)state your offline
> > > discussed
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > agreed
> > > > > > > > migration
> > > > > > > > >> > strategy based on a magic byte is in
> > > this
> > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > The main original driver for the KIP
> > > was to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > compaction where
> > > > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > > > >> > isn't null, based off the
> discussions
> > on
> > > > KIP-82
> > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > We should be able to support
> > > non-tombstone +
> > > > > null
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > >> completion
> > > > > > > > >> > of the KIP, as we noted when
> > discussing
> > > this
> > > > > kip,
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > logic based on
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > null value isn't very clean and also
> > > separates
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > As discussed already though we can
> > > split this
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > KIP-87a
> > > > > > > > and KIP-87b
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Where we look to deliver KIP-87a on
> a
> > > > compacted
> > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > address the
> > > > > > > > >> > immediate issues)
> > > > > > > > >> > * tombstone + null value
> > > > > > > > >> > * tombstone + non-null value
> > > > > > > > >> > * non-tombstone + non-null value
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Then we can discuss once KIP-87a is
> > > completed
> > > > > > options
> > > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > and how we
> > > > > > > > >> > support the second part KIP-87b to
> > > deliver:
> > > > > > > > >> > * non-tombstone + null value
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Cheers
> > > > > > > > >> > Mike
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > ______________________________
> > > __________
> > > > > > > > >> > From: Becket Qin <
> > becket....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016
> 1:43
> > > AM
> > > > > > > > >> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-87 - Add
> > > Compaction
> > > > > > > Tombstone Flag
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Renu, Mayuresh and I had an offline
> > > > discussion,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > is a brief
> > > > > > > > >> > summary.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > 1. We agreed that not bumping up
> magic
> > > value
> > > > may
> > > > > > result
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > losing zero
> > > > > > > > >> copy
> > > > > > > > >> > during migration.
> > > > > > > > >> > 2. Given that bumping up magic value
> > is
> > > almost
> > > > > > free and
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > benefit of
> > > > > > > > >> > avoiding potential performance
> issue.
> > > It is
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > One issue we still need to think
> about
> > > is
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > want to
> > > > > > > > support a
> > > > > > > > >> > non-tombstone message with null
> value.
> > > > > > > > >> > Currently it is not supported by
> > Kafka.
> > > If we
> > > > > > allow a
> > > > > > > > non-tombstone null
> > > > > > > > >> > value message to exist after KIP-87.
> > The
> > > > problem
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that such
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >> > not be supported by the consumers
> > prior
> > > to
> > > > > KIP-87.
> > > > > > > Because a
> > > > > > > > null value
> > > > > > > > >> > will always be interpreted to a
> > > tombstone.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > One option is that we keep the
> current
> > > way,
> > > > i.e.
> > > > > > do not
> > > > > > > > support such
> > > > > > > > >> > message. It would be good to know if
> > > there is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > concrete use
> > > > > > > > case for
> > > > > > > > >> such
> > > > > > > > >> > message. If there is not, we can
> > > probably just
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > support it.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > JIangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:28 PM,
> > > Mayuresh
> > > > > Gharat <
> > > > > > > > >> > gharatmayures...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Ismael,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > This is something I can think of
> for
> > > > migration
> > > > > > plan:
> > > > > > > > >> > > So the migration plan can look
> > > something
> > > > like
> > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > with up
> > > > > > > > >> conversion :
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > 1) Currently lets say we have
> Broker
> > > at
> > > > > version
> > > > > > x.
> > > > > > > > >> > > 2) Currently we have clients at
> > > version x.
> > > > > > > > >> > > 3) a) We move the version to
> > > Broker(x+1) :
> > > > > > supports
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > tombstone and
> > > > > > > > >> > null
> > > > > > > > >> > > for log compaction.
> > > > > > > > >> > > b) We upgrade the client to
> > > version
> > > > > > client(x+1) :
> > > > > > > if in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> producer
> > > > > > > > >> > > client(x+1) the value is set to
> > null,
> > > we
> > > > will
> > > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > set the
> > > > > > > > >> > > Tombstone bit internally. If the
> > > producer
> > > > > > client(x+1)
> > > > > > > sets
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> tombstone
> > > > > > > > >> > > itself, well and good. For
> producer
> > > > client(x),
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > will up
> > > > > > > > >> convert
> > > > > > > > >> > > to have the tombstone bit.
> > > Broker(x+1) is
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > both.
> > > > > > > > Consumer
> > > > > > > > >> > > client(x+1) will be aware of this
> > and
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > handle this.
> > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > >> > > consumer client(x) we will down
> > > convert the
> > > > > > message
> > > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > >> side.
> > > > > > > > >> > > c) At this point we will have
> to
> > > > specify a
> > > > > > > warning or
> > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > >> specify
> > > > > > > > >> > > in docs that this behavior is
> about
> > > to be
> > > > > > changed for
> > > > > > > log
> > > > > > > > compaction.
> > > > > > > > >> > > 4) a) In next release of the
> > > Broker(x+2), we
> > > > > > say that
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > Tombstone
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > used for log compaction on the
> > Broker
> > > side.
> > > > > > > Clients(x+1)
> > > > > > > > still is
> > > > > > > > >> > > supported.
> > > > > > > > >> > > b) We upgrade the client to
> > > version
> > > > > > client(x+2) :
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > value is set
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > null, tombstone will not be set
> > > > automatically.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > will have to
> > > > > > > > >> > call
> > > > > > > > >> > > setTombstone() to actually set the
> > > > tombstone.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > We should compare this migration
> > plan
> > > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > migration
> > > > > > > > plan for
> > > > > > > > >> magic
> > > > > > > > >> > > byte bump and do whatever looks
> > good.
> > > > > > > > >> > > I am just worried that if we go
> down
> > > magic
> > > > > byte
> > > > > > route,
> > > > > > > > unless I am
> > > > > > > > >> > missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > something, it sounds like kafka
> will
> > > be
> > > > stuck
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > supporting both
> > > > > > > > >> null
> > > > > > > > >> > > value and tombstone bit for log
> > > compaction
> > > > for
> > > > > > life
> > > > > > > long,
> > > > > > > > which does
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > look like a good end state.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:32 AM,
> > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > Gharat <
> > > > > > > > >> > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Ismael,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > That's a very good point which I
> > > might
> > > > have
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > considered earlier.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Here is a plan that I can think
> > of:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Stage 1) The broker from now on,
> > up
> > > > converts
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > to have the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > tombstone marker. The log
> > compaction
> > > > thread
> > > > > > does log
> > > > > > > > compaction
> > > > > > > > >> based
> > > > > > > > >> > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > both null and tombstone marker.
> > > This is
> > > > our
> > > > > > > transition
> > > > > > > > period.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Stage 2) The next release we
> only
> > > say that
> > > > > log
> > > > > > > compaction
> > > > > > > > is based
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > tombstone marker. (Open source
> > > kafka makes
> > > > > > this as a
> > > > > > > > policy). By
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > time,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the organization which is moving
> > to
> > > this
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > sure that
> > > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > have gone through the entire
> > > transition
> > > > > > period.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > My only goal of doing this is
> that
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > specifies the end
> > > > > > > > >> > state
> > > > > > > > >> > > > about what log compaction means
> > (is
> > > it
> > > > null
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > or a
> > > > > > > > tombstone
> > > > > > > > >> > marker,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > but not both).
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:17 AM,
> > > Ismael
> > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > > ism...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> One comment below.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:08
> PM,
> > > Mayuresh
> > > > > > Gharat <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> gharatmayures...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > - If we don't bump up the
> > > magic
> > > > byte,
> > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > side, the
> > > > > > > > >> > > broker
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > will always have to look
> at
> > > both
> > > > > > tombstone
> > > > > > > bit and
> > > > > > > > the value
> > > > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > compaction. Assuming we do
> > > not bump
> > > > up
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > magic
> > > > > > > > byte,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > imagine the broker sees a
> > > message
> > > > > which
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > >> tombstone
> > > > > > > > >> > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > set. The broker does not
> > know
> > > when
> > > > the
> > > > > > > message was
> > > > > > > > produced
> > > > > > > > >> (i.e.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > whether
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > the message has been up
> > > converted or
> > > > > > not), it
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > to take a
> > > > > > > > >> > further
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > look at
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > the value to see if it is
> > > null or
> > > > not
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > order to
> > > > > > > > determine
> > > > > > > > >> if it
> > > > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > tombstone. The same logic
> > has
> > > to be
> > > > > put
> > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > > consumer as
> > > > > > > > >> well
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> because
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > consumer does not know if
> > the
> > > > message
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > been up
> > > > > > > > converted or
> > > > > > > > >> > not.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > - If we upconvert while
> > > > appending,
> > > > > > this is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > the case,
> > > > > > > > >> > right?
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> If I understand you correctly,
> > > this is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > sufficient
> > > > > > > > because the
> > > > > > > > >> log
> > > > > > > > >> > > may
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> have messages appended before
> it
> > > was
> > > > > > upgraded to
> > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > KIP-87.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > -Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > (862) 250-7125
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > -Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > Mayuresh R. Gharat
> > > > > > > > >> > > (862) 250-7125
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > The information contained in this
> > email
> > > is
> > > > > > strictly
> > > > > > > > confidential and for
> > > > > > > > >> > the use of the addressee only,
> unless
> > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > indicated. If
> > > > > > > > you are
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > the intended recipient, please do
> not
> > > read,
> > > > > copy,
> > > > > > use or
> > > > > > > > disclose to
> > > > > > > > >> others
> > > > > > > > >> > this message or any attachment.
> Please
> > > also
> > > > > > notify the
> > > > > > > sender
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> replying
> > > > > > > > >> > to this email or by telephone
> (+44(020
> > > 7896
> > > > > 0011)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > delete the
> > > > > > > > >> email
> > > > > > > > >> > and any copies of it. Opinions,
> > > conclusion
> > > > (etc)
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > do not
> > > > > > > > relate to
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > official business of this company
> > shall
> > > be
> > > > > > understood as
> > > > > > > > neither given
> > > > > > > > >> nor
> > > > > > > > >> > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name
> > of
> > > IG
> > > > > Markets
> > > > > > > Limited (a
> > > > > > > > company
> > > > > > > > >> > registered in England and Wales,
> > company
> > > > number
> > > > > > > 04008957) and
> > > > > > > > IG Index
> > > > > > > > >> > Limited (a company registered in
> > > England and
> > > > > > Wales,
> > > > > > > company
> > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > >> > 01190902). Registered address at
> > Cannon
> > > Bridge
> > > > > > House, 25
> > > > > > > > Dowgate Hill,
> > > > > > > > >> > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets
> > Limited
> > > > > (register
> > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > 195355) and IG
> > > > > > > > >> > Index Limited (register number
> 114059)
> > > are
> > > > > > authorised
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > regulated by
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> -Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> Mayuresh R. Gharat
> > > > > > > > >> (862) 250-7125
> > > > > > > > >> The information contained in this
> email
> > is
> > > > > strictly
> > > > > > > > confidential and for
> > > > > > > > >> the use of the addressee only, unless
> > > otherwise
> > > > > > > indicated. If
> > > > > > > > you are not
> > > > > > > > >> the intended recipient, please do not
> > > read,
> > > > copy,
> > > > > > use or
> > > > > > > > disclose to others
> > > > > > > > >> this message or any attachment. Please
> > > also
> > > > notify
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > sender
> > > > > > > > by replying
> > > > > > > > >> to this email or by telephone (+44(020
> > > 7896
> > > > 0011)
> > > > > > and then
> > > > > > > > delete the email
> > > > > > > > >> and any copies of it. Opinions,
> > > conclusion (etc)
> > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > relate to the
> > > > > > > > >> official business of this company
> shall
> > be
> > > > > > understood as
> > > > > > > > neither given nor
> > > > > > > > >> endorsed by it. IG is a trading name
> of
> > IG
> > > > Markets
> > > > > > > Limited (a
> > > > > > > > company
> > > > > > > > >> registered in England and Wales,
> company
> > > number
> > > > > > 04008957)
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > IG Index
> > > > > > > > >> Limited (a company registered in
> England
> > > and
> > > > > Wales,
> > > > > > > company
> > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > >> 01190902). Registered address at
> Cannon
> > > Bridge
> > > > > > House, 25
> > > > > > > > Dowgate Hill,
> > > > > > > > >> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets
> Limited
> > > > (register
> > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > 195355) and IG
> > > > > > > > >> Index Limited (register number 114059)
> > are
> > > > > > authorised and
> > > > > > > > regulated by the
> > > > > > > > >> Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > -Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat
> > > > > > > > > (862) 250-7125
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > -Regards,
> > > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat
> > > > > > > > (862) 250-7125
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is
> > > strictly
> > > > > > confidential
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > for the use of the addressee only, unless
> otherwise
> > > > > indicated.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > you are
> > > > > > > > not the intended recipient, please do not read,
> > > copy, use
> > > > or
> > > > > > > disclose to
> > > > > > > > others this message or any attachment. Please
> also
> > > notify
> > > > the
> > > > > > sender
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > replying to this email or by telephone (+44(020
> > 7896
> > > 0011)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > delete
> > > > > > > > the email and any copies of it. Opinions,
> > conclusion
> > > (etc)
> > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > relate to the official business of this company
> > > shall be
> > > > > > understood
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > neither given nor endorsed by it. IG is a trading
> > > name of
> > > > IG
> > > > > > Markets
> > > > > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and
> Wales,
> > > company
> > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > 04008957) and IG Index Limited (a company
> > registered
> > > in
> > > > > > England and
> > > > > > > Wales,
> > > > > > > > company number 01190902). Registered address at
> > > Cannon
> > > > Bridge
> > > > > > House,
> > > > > > > 25
> > > > > > > > Dowgate Hill, London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets
> > > Limited
> > > > > > (register
> > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > 195355) and IG Index Limited (register number
> > > 114059) are
> > > > > > authorised
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly
> > > confidential
> > > > > and
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise
> > indicated.
> > > If you
> > > > > > are not
> > > > > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use
> or
> > > disclose
> > > > > to
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the
> > > sender by
> > > > > > replying
> > > > > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and
> > then
> > > delete
> > > > > > the email
> > > > > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that
> do
> > > not
> > > > relate
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > official business of this company shall be understood
> as
> > > neither
> > > > > > given nor
> > > > > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets
> > Limited
> > > (a
> > > > > company
> > > > > > > registered in England and Wales, company number
> 04008957)
> > > and IG
> > > > > > Index
> > > > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales,
> > company
> > > > number
> > > > > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House,
> 25
> > > Dowgate
> > > > > > Hill,
> > > > > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register
> number
> > > 195355)
> > > > > > and IG
> > > > > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised
> and
> > > > regulated
> > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly
> > confidential
> > > and
> > > > for
> > > > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If
> > > you are
> > > > not
> > > > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or
> > > disclose to
> > > > > others
> > > > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender
> > by
> > > > replying
> > > > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then
> > > delete the
> > > > > email
> > > > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not
> > > relate to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > official business of this company shall be understood as
> > neither
> > > given
> > > > > nor
> > > > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a
> > > company
> > > > > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and
> > IG
> > > Index
> > > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company
> > > number
> > > > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25
> > Dowgate
> > > Hill,
> > > > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number
> > > 195355) and
> > > > IG
> > > > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and
> > > regulated by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly
> confidential
> > > and for
> > > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If
> you
> > > are not
> > > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or
> disclose
> > > to
> > > > others
> > > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender
> by
> > > replying
> > > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then
> delete
> > > the
> > > > email
> > > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not
> > > relate to
> > > > the
> > > > > official business of this company shall be understood as
> neither
> > > given
> > > > nor
> > > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a
> > > company
> > > > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and
> IG
> > > Index
> > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company
> > number
> > > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25
> Dowgate
> > > Hill,
> > > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number
> 195355)
> > > and IG
> > > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and
> > > regulated by
> > > > the
> > > > > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential
> > and
> > > for
> > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you
> > > are not
> > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose
> > to
> > > others
> > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by
> > > replying
> > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete
> > > the email
> > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not
> relate
> > > to the
> > > > official business of this company shall be understood as neither
> > > given nor
> > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a
> > company
> > > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG
> > > Index
> > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company
> number
> > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate
> > > Hill,
> > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355)
> > > and IG
> > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and
> regulated
> > > by the
> > > > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and
> for
> > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are
> not
> > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to
> > others
> > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by
> replying
> > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the
> > email
> > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to
> > the
> > > official business of this company shall be understood as neither given
> > nor
> > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company
> > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index
> > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number
> > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill,
> > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and
> IG
> > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by
> > the
> > > Financial Conduct Authority.
> > >
> > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for
> > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not
> > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to
> others
> > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying
> > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the
> email
> > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to
> the
> > official business of this company shall be understood as neither given
> nor
> > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company
> > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index
> > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number
> > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill,
> > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and IG
> > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by
> the
> > Financial Conduct Authority.
> >
> The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for
> the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to others
> this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying
> to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the email
> and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to the
> official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor
> endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company
> registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index
> Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number
> 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill,
> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and IG
> Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by the
> Financial Conduct Authority.
>
