All,
As the vote has passed, I have raised a PR here:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9280
Please help review.
Thanks,
Gokul
On 04-09-2020 00:48, Gokul Srinivas wrote:
Appreciate the help!
On 04-09-2020 00:46, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote:
Yep, you can go ahead and call for a vote on the
Appreciate the help!
On 04-09-2020 00:46, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote:
Yep, you can go ahead and call for a vote on the KIP
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:09 PM Gokul Srinivas wrote:
Sophie,
That sounds fair. I've updated the KIP to state the same message for
backward compatibility to
Yep, you can go ahead and call for a vote on the KIP
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:09 PM Gokul Srinivas wrote:
> Sophie,
>
> That sounds fair. I've updated the KIP to state the same message for
> backward compatibility to existing (albeit hacky) solutions.
>
> As this is my first ever contribution
Sophie,
That sounds fair. I've updated the KIP to state the same message for
backward compatibility to existing (albeit hacky) solutions.
As this is my first ever contribution - is the next step to initiate the
voting on this KIP?
-Gokul
On 04-09-2020 00:34, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote:
I
I think the current proposal looks good to me. One minor suggestion I have
is to consider keeping the same error message:
Failing batch since transaction was aborted
When we were running into this issue in Streams and accidentally rethrowing
the KafkaException as fatal, we ended up checking the
All,
Gentle reminder - any comments on the line of thinking I mentioned in
the last email? I've updated the Exception to be named
"TransactionAbortedException" on the KIP confluence page.
-Gokul
On 01-09-2020 18:34, Gokul Srinivas wrote:
Matthias, Sophie, Jason,
Took another pass at
Matthias, Sophie, Jason,
Took another pass at understanding the internals and it seems to me like
we should be extending the `ApiException` rather than the
`RetriableException`.
The check in question
=
Do we abort any undrained batches that are present on this
Hi Gokul,
Thanks, I think it makes sense to use a separate exception type. +1 on
Sophie's suggestion for `TransactionAbortedException`.
Extending from `RetriableException` seems reasonable as well. I guess the
only question is whether it's safe to catch it as a `RetriableException`
and apply
Hey Gokul, thanks for taking up this KIP!
I agree with Matthias that directly extending KafkaException may not be
ideal,
and we should instead extend APIException or RetriableException. Of the two,
I think APIException would be more appropriate. My understanding is that
RetriableException is
Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall.
However, I am wondering if the new exception should extend
`KafkaException`? It seems, extending `ApiException` or maybe even
`RetriableException` might be better?
About the name itself. I would prefer something simpler like
`AbortedTransactionException`.
Hello all,
I would like to propose the following KIP to throw a new non-fatal
exception whilst aborting transactions with non-flushed data. This will
help users distinguish non-fatal errors and potentially retry the batch.
*Issue *- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10186
11 matches
Mail list logo
