<h3><u>#general</u></h3><br><strong>@kavinsrec33: </strong>@kavinsrec33 has
joined the channel<br><strong>@kavin.kuppusamy: </strong>@kavin.kuppusamy has
joined the channel<br><h3><u>#random</u></h3><br><strong>@kavinsrec33:
</strong>@kavinsrec33 has joined the channel<br><strong>@kavin.kuppusamy:
</strong>@kavin.kuppusamy has joined the
channel<br><h3><u>#troubleshooting</u></h3><br><strong>@pradeepgv42:
</strong>Is there support for SSL connections to Kafka for the KafkaConsumer
used by pinot?
<https://u17000708.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=1BiFF0-2FtVRazUn1cLzaiMdTeAXadp8BL3QinSdRtJdo5Vml3IIBLs7JiV3aA7xH6E1xuyunoVEcnqa9dbWn9CJtee9zt1zS2vZW4Bc-2FI7OT2S7h91HyM56Tdn3p1HYrCtW8anj1KBhTvL6z8tNyKrg-3D-3DHsVq_vGLQYiKGfBLXsUt3KGBrxeq6BCTMpPOLROqAvDqBeTw-2F7fTXA8VTquVm6-2B7x9YZ4K-2FCp294DUa5XBtKdkRM3s1Z-2FV8qqHQEDfWN29NTO6o-2BuM-2FFDeAz-2B-2BWPcQA8WTMoUQXqqKAD8sCRpLta0Ud2P3Ui6-2BSo-2FvwXEGhM0ZlL1jVZ6639SQtfJz-2BiS56barzFXDn3kvCbFZmDKegc3ks2vSMFfftpf6QTwFt5TfTr3V8Q-3D>
I don’t see option to pass in keystore/truststore etc as part of the
configuration?<br><strong>@kavinsrec33: </strong>@kavinsrec33 has joined the
channel<br><strong>@kavin.kuppusamy: </strong>@kavin.kuppusamy has joined the
channel<br><strong>@pradeepgv42: </strong>awesome
thanks<br><h3><u>#enable-generic-offsets</u></h3><br><strong>@ssubrama:
</strong>@ssubrama has left the
channel<br><h3><u>#pinot-dev</u></h3><br><strong>@ssubrama: </strong>@npawar
will be good to send out an email as well, with a summary of proposed config
changes. With pinot gaining wider adoption in the community and more production
cases, we need to pay attention to our configs and make sure we pick the right
defaults and keep things as simple as possible. The community can help us
here<br><strong>@jackie.jxt: </strong>I've submitted a PR to remove the code
for HAVING clause handling because it is not properly done and the result is
not accurate:
<https://u17000708.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=1BiFF0-2FtVRazUn1cLzaiMSfW2QiSG4bkQpnpkSL7FiK3MHb8libOHmhAW89nP5XKeHZoW8VXHXETAL6OLFt2lw-3D-3DcKvg_vGLQYiKGfBLXsUt3KGBrxeq6BCTMpPOLROqAvDqBeTw-2F7fTXA8VTquVm6-2B7x9YZ4Erv4Y2TjYZnC0kDDbXIgwsma-2BAj1IeHxJCz6uOkiNw8otvYYpquLoqbvF-2FegtywOujcvJSlCh7DJ1bPk-2B4WCc0mGZmp3Ix3qAeu86xH4Z9Ab9Vrb1QtDTqcadCLNh9fDKJgU4gPnBFjtaNyolKc6smgdmhZTbO60DNZRseOwL-2Bk-3D><br><strong>@jackie.jxt:
</strong>Officially (in the documentation) Pinot does not support HAVING for
now. Will add HAVING clause support after migrating to
SQL<br><strong>@jackie.jxt: </strong>Can someone help review the PR? And please
leave comments if you have concern on removing the support of
HAVING<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>I’m trying to move pinot startable to
use config files always:
<https://u17000708.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=1BiFF0-2FtVRazUn1cLzaiMSfW2QiSG4bkQpnpkSL7FiK3MHb8libOHmhAW89nP5XKryTRZlFWkpBfqZFu5-2BbiRA-3D-3DO1Xo_vGLQYiKGfBLXsUt3KGBrxeq6BCTMpPOLROqAvDqBeTw-2F7fTXA8VTquVm6-2B7x9YZ4-2FrEKpMo9144C0k4asvIeSk1jLi1-2BSjBRc9lq5MLYuZZJJOsXT1N-2FomAlVIQzh3miJgj-2BowuuBxL-2BBYKwHEU67dRUXXe3M5DeRPInzUfQvdRP1pn8a22FwOC54lDB7z4OkX6pdNpVuMQ7DQfUwl4-2FvO3lajUkBpPEg4-2FfYkkDiY4-3D><br><strong>@fx19880617:
</strong>this can better fill the cap between trying out our quickstart and
deploying pinot<br><strong>@dlavoie: </strong>Consistency is awesome! Just a
quick question on the theme around this improvement. Has it been considered to
standardize config management so all the potential properties may be passed
through env var, cli args and property files independently? Most modern java
framework offers configuration abstraction. Apache Commons Configuration
enables that with CompositePropertiesConfiguration but it requires manual setup
and bootstrap.<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>The purpose is to let startable
not using the cli args but use config file<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>so
it would be better place to enforce the consistency<br><strong>@dlavoie:
</strong>I understand the purpose of the PR, and think is a good improvement.
My question is wether it has been considered to implement an abstraction that
offer the maximum flexibility for operators. Based on the deployment method,
cli args might be the best. In the case of K8s, env var are more likely to be
preferable, and on template engine based deployment, config files are great. I
like to think that pinot should be independent from the configuration
source.<br><strong>@dlavoie: </strong>This question is off topic from the PR,
I’m forecasting ideas for future improvement for maximum flexibility for
operators.<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>hmm<br><strong>@fx19880617:
</strong>let me think about it<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>ideally there
could be templating configs<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>then config
override from cli is supported<br><strong>@fx19880617: </strong>I feel most of
the deployment should be fine with updating the config file and
restart<br><strong>@g.kishore: </strong>@dlavoie we want to standardize the
start/stop of all components<br><strong>@g.kishore: </strong>will create an
issue and share my thoughts<br><strong>@dlavoie: </strong>Config management is
a topic of the hearth, by such it is hard to assume what people prefer. By
experience, what usually finds appeal in a community is choice. The best
configuration mechanism is tied to a context which that cannot be assumed by a
software contributor. Long story short, abstract it from your software and
everyone will be happy. Yaml, json, env var, java system properties,
implementation detail and not much of a deployment constraint.<br>
