Hi all,
Any other thoughts about this KIP? If not, I'll start a vote on the KIP
some time next week.
cheers,
Colin
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, at 13:03, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Thanks Colin, it makes sense now, it was the HWM party I was missing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 6 Oct 2017 6:44 pm, "Colin
Thanks Colin, it makes sense now, it was the HWM party I was missing.
Cheers,
Tom
On 6 Oct 2017 6:44 pm, "Colin McCabe" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, at 12:06, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> Is it really true that "the period when the offset is unavailable should
> be
> brief"? I'm thinking
Thanks for the KIP Colin. That looks like a reasonable proposal.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I created a KIP for discussion about fixing a corner case in
> ListOffsetsResponse. Check it out at:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 207
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, at 12:06, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> Is it really true that "the period when the offset is unavailable should
> be
> brief"? I'm thinking about a producer with acks=1, so the old leader
> returns the ProduceResponse immediately and then is replaced before it
> can
> se
Hi Colin,
Is it really true that "the period when the offset is unavailable should be
brief"? I'm thinking about a producer with acks=1, so the old leader
returns the ProduceResponse immediately and then is replaced before it can
sent a FetchResponse to any followers. The new leader is then waitin
Hi all,
I created a KIP for discussion about fixing a corner case in
ListOffsetsResponse. Check it out at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-207%3A+Offsets+returned+by+ListOffsetsResponse+should+be+monotonically+increasing+even+during+a+partition+leader+change
cheers,
Colin
