dajac commented on code in PR #16826:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16826#discussion_r1708823634
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/ConsumerCoordinator.java:
##########
@@ -1460,10 +1460,14 @@ public void handle(OffsetFetchResponse response,
RequestFuture<Map<TopicPartitio
if (responseError == Errors.COORDINATOR_LOAD_IN_PROGRESS) {
// just retry
future.raise(responseError);
- } else if (responseError == Errors.NOT_COORDINATOR) {
+ } else if (responseError == Errors.COORDINATOR_NOT_AVAILABLE ||
+ responseError == Errors.NOT_COORDINATOR) {
// re-discover the coordinator and retry
markCoordinatorUnknown(responseError);
future.raise(responseError);
+ } else if (responseError.exception() instanceof
RetriableException) {
+ // retry
+ future.raise(responseError);
Review Comment:
For the context, our main goal was to add `COORDINATOR_NOT_AVAILABLE`.
Overall, it makes sense to handle retriable errors here too. I wonder if this
could have any undesired side effects but I cannot think of any.
@lianetm I agree that we need to align the new consumer if we decide to keep
this change here. If we are still undecided, we could also do the change for
both consumers in one PR. What do you think?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
