Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

The voting thread for this KIP is open. Thanks, Guozhang and Matthias, for already having voted! On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 1:18 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Matthias / Victoria, both bullet points make sense to me. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:39 AM Victoria Xia > wrote: > > > > Thanks for

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks Matthias / Victoria, both bullet points make sense to me. On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:39 AM Victoria Xia wrote: > > Thanks for your comments, Matthias! > > > For stream-table joins, I think we need to elaborate that a `get(k, ts)` > call now might return `null` if the history retention of

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Hi everyone, As mentioned in the KIP, I would like to include these changes together with KIP-889 in the 3.5 release to avoid any potential compatibility concerns. Given that the current discussion is nearing convergence and the KIP deadline for 3.5 is five days away (March 22), I will initiate a

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for your comments, Matthias! > For stream-table joins, I think we need to elaborate that a `get(k, ts)` call now might return `null` if the history retention of the store is too short. Great callout -- I agree we should definitely clarify this in the KIP and mention it in the eventual

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for the KIP! Great to see a first step towards using the new versioned stores! I think the described tradeoffs make sense and I like make a pragmatic step into the right direction, and avoid boiling the ocean. Thus, I agree to the proposed solution. One minor thing, that I believe

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Sounds good to me. Thanks! On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:07 PM Victoria Xia wrote: > > Thanks for kicking off the discussion, John and Guozhang! > > > Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the > versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for kicking off the discussion, John and Guozhang! > Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it via a single config rather than changing the materialized object at each place? Yes, I

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks Victoria for the great writeup, with a thorough analysis and trade-offs. I do not have any major questions about the proposal. Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it via a single

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for the KIP, Victoria! I had some questions/concerns, but you addressed them in the Rejected Alternatives section. Thanks for the thorough proposal! -John On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, at 18:59, Victoria Xia wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have a proposal for updating Kafka Streams's stream-table

[DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Hi everyone, I have a proposal for updating Kafka Streams's stream-table join and table-table join semantics for the new versioned key-value state stores introduced in KIP-889 . Would love to hear your thoughts