Thanks, everyone.  I'm going to close the vote tomorrow if there are no
more comments or votes.

regards,
Colin


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017, at 08:09, Manikumar wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP.
> +1 (non-binding)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> 
> > +1. Thanks for the KIP.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, at 10:29, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the KIP. I'm assuming the new behavior only affects
> > > > ListOffsets requests from the consumer.
> > >
> > > That's a very good point.  I will add a caveat that we only apply the
> > > KIP-207 behavior to requests from clients, not requests from other
> > > brokers (such as the ones made by ReplicaFetcherThread).
> > >
> > > > Might be worth mentioning that in the KIP.
> > > > Also, does it affect all ListOffsets requests, or only those that
> > specify
> > > > the latest offset?
> > >
> > > I don't feel great about allowing someone to ask for the offset at time
> > > T, get back X, and then ask again for the offset at T the next second
> > > and get back InvalidOffsetException.  So it's probably best just to
> > > apply the KIP-207 behavior to all ListOffsets requests from consumers.
> > >
> > > Thinking about it a bit more, we should disable the KIP-207 behavior
> > > when unclean leader elections are enabled on the broker.  When unclean
> > > leader elections are enabled, data loss is possible.  So we cannot
> > > guarantee that offsets will always go forwards, even in theory, in this
> > > mode.
> > >
> > > I update the kip-- check it out.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 04:09, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding). A few comments:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. I agree with Jun about LEADER_NOT_AVAILABLE for the error code
> > for
> > > > > > older
> > > > > > versions.
> > > > > > 2. OffsetNotAvailableException seems clear enough (i.e. we don't
> > > need the
> > > > > > "ForPartition" part)
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, that is shorter and probably clearer.  Changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 3. The KIP seems to be missing the compatibility section.
> > > > >
> > > > > Added.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 4. It would be good to mention that it's now possible for a fetch
> > to
> > > > > > succeed while list offsets will not for a period of time. And for
> > > older
> > > > > > versions, the latter will return LeaderNotAvailable while the
> > former
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > work fine, which is a bit unexpected. Not much we can do about it,
> > > but
> > > > > > worth mentioning it in my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair enough
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers,
> > > > > Colin
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Colin,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just a minor comment. For the old client
> > > > > requests,
> > > > > > > would it be better to return a LEADER_NOT_AVAILABLE error
> > instead?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Colin McCabe <
> > cmcc...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to start the voting process for KIP-207:The  Offsets
> > > which
> > > > > > > > ListOffsetsResponse returns should monotonically increase even
> > > > > during a
> > > > > > > > partition leader change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > > 207%3A+Offsets+returned+by+ListOffsetsResponse+should+be+
> > > > > > > > monotonically+increasing+even+during+a+partition+leader+change
> > > > > > > > for details.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The voting process will run for at least 72 hours.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >

Reply via email to