chia7712 commented on code in PR #16873:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16873#discussion_r1725992843
##########
core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaApis.scala:
##########
@@ -1103,35 +1103,41 @@ class KafkaApis(val requestChannel: RequestChannel,
val responseTopics = authorizedRequestInfo.map { topic =>
val responsePartitions = topic.partitions.asScala.map { partition =>
- val topicPartition = new TopicPartition(topic.name,
partition.partitionIndex)
-
- try {
- val offsets = replicaManager.legacyFetchOffsetsForTimestamp(
- topicPartition = topicPartition,
- timestamp = partition.timestamp,
- maxNumOffsets = partition.maxNumOffsets,
- isFromConsumer = offsetRequest.replicaId ==
ListOffsetsRequest.CONSUMER_REPLICA_ID,
- fetchOnlyFromLeader = offsetRequest.replicaId !=
ListOffsetsRequest.DEBUGGING_REPLICA_ID)
+ if (partition.timestamp() < ListOffsetsRequest.EARLIEST_TIMESTAMP) {
new ListOffsetsPartitionResponse()
.setPartitionIndex(partition.partitionIndex)
- .setErrorCode(Errors.NONE.code)
- .setOldStyleOffsets(offsets.map(JLong.valueOf).asJava)
- } catch {
- // NOTE: UnknownTopicOrPartitionException and
NotLeaderOrFollowerException are special cases since these error messages
- // are typically transient and there is no value in logging the
entire stack trace for the same
- case e @ (_ : UnknownTopicOrPartitionException |
- _ : NotLeaderOrFollowerException |
- _ : KafkaStorageException) =>
- debug("Offset request with correlation id %d from client %s on
partition %s failed due to %s".format(
- correlationId, clientId, topicPartition, e.getMessage))
- new ListOffsetsPartitionResponse()
- .setPartitionIndex(partition.partitionIndex)
- .setErrorCode(Errors.forException(e).code)
- case e: Throwable =>
- error("Error while responding to offset request", e)
+ .setErrorCode(Errors.UNSUPPORTED_VERSION.code)
+ } else {
+ val topicPartition = new TopicPartition(topic.name,
partition.partitionIndex)
+
+ try {
+ val offsets = replicaManager.legacyFetchOffsetsForTimestamp(
Review Comment:
If tiered storage can have correct MV, enforcing a minimum MV at each RPC
level is not necessary as the request version is based on MV.
Hence, the issue is "how to enforce the MV 3.5 when enabling tiered storage"?
> Feature version now supports MV dependency. Going forward, instead of
enforcing a minimum MV at each RPC level, it's probably better to enforce it
once at the feature version level.
Pardon me, do you mean to add `TieredStorageVersion` (like `GroupVersion`)?
if so, I guess that is beyond 3.9?
IMHO, checking the version when tiered storage sends request is a enough
simple solution to backport to 3.9.
--
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]
