Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

Hi All, Looks like we have a total of +10, with +6 binding. Thanks to all who voted and participated in the discussion! -Jason On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jun Rao wrote: > Thanks for the proposal. +1. > > Jun > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

Thanks for the proposal. +1. Jun On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the > number of records

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote: > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM -0800, "Joel Koshy" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the > number of records returned in a call to poll(). This

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Jens Rantil wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > > configuration option

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 (binding) On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM -0800, "Joel Koshy" wrote: +1 On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records"

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the > number of records returned in a call to poll(). This

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer memory footprints in a separate KIP. -Thanks aarti On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to

[VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

Hi All, I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the number of records returned in a call to poll(). This gives users a way to limit message processing time to avoid unexpected rebalancing. This

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

Also, great job on the KIP, Jason. I love the solution you found and I love how well you explained it in the KIP. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > >> Hi

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Aarti Gupta wrote: > +1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to > process a known amount of message on each poll. We can handle consumer > memory footprints in a separate KIP. > > -Thanks > aarti > > On Wed,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 (binding) -Ewen On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1. > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Aarti Gupta > wrote: > > > +1, this seems to be the best non intrusive option, and allows us to > > process a known amount of message

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 (binding) On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records" which sets an upper bound on the > number of records returned in a call to