chia7712 commented on code in PR #22873:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/22873#discussion_r4109605690
##########
storage/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/storage/internals/log/UnifiedLog.java:
##########
@@ -2000,39 +2000,34 @@ public interface DeletionCondition {
}
private int deleteRetentionMsBreachedSegments() throws IOException {
- long retentionMs = UnifiedLog.localRetentionMs(config(),
remoteLogEnabledAndRemoteCopyEnabled());
+ boolean remoteLogEnabledAndRemoteCopyEnabled =
remoteLogEnabledAndRemoteCopyEnabled();
+ long retentionMs = UnifiedLog.localRetentionMs(config(),
remoteLogEnabledAndRemoteCopyEnabled);
if (retentionMs < 0) return 0;
long startMs = time().milliseconds();
DeletionCondition shouldDelete = (segment, nextSegmentOpt) -> {
- if (startMs < segment.largestTimestamp()) {
- futureTimestampLogger.warn("{} contains future timestamp(s),
making it ineligible to be deleted", segment);
+ long anchorTimestamp = segment.largestTimestamp();
+ if (startMs < anchorTimestamp) {
+ if (remoteLogEnabledAndRemoteCopyEnabled) {
+ anchorTimestamp = segment.lastModified();
Review Comment:
> after it's uploaded to tier storage
Agreed, and that is similar to my previous suggestion "the copy-finished
timestamp in remote metadata".
Another point we need to discuss is whether it belongs to the fallback
mechanism or we should just ignore the record timestamp. I think we can do the
former as a kind of improvement, and the latter probably needs a KIP to change
the semantic of local retention. WDYT?
--
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]
