Hello Sönke,
Thanks for the quick catch! I've fixed the test with this change.
Guozhang
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:53 AM Sönke Liebau
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> I've left a comment on the merged pull request, but not sure if you'll get
> notified about that since the PR was already merged, so
Hi Guozhang,
I've left a comment on the merged pull request, but not sure if you'll get
notified about that since the PR was already merged, so I'll write here as
well.
Setting this to -1 needs to be reflected in the test
shouldAddInternalTopicConfigForRepartitionTopics
as well, as this currently
Hello folks,
I'm closing this voting thread now, thanks to all who have provided your
feedbacks!
Here's a quick tally:
Binding +1: 4 (Damian, Bill, Manikumar, Guozhang)
Non-binding +1: (John, Mickael).
Guozhang
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:32 AM Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Ah I see, my bad :) Yes
Ah I see, my bad :) Yes that was the documented value in `TopicConfig`, and
I agree we should just change that as well.
Will update the KIP.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> I know the KIP is about segments configuration but I'm talking about
>
Hi Guozhang,
I know the KIP is about segments configuration but I'm talking about
retention.ms which is also explicitly set on repartition topics
https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RepartitionTopicConfig.java#L39
Streams
Hello Mickael,
segment.ms default value in TopicConfig is 7 days, I think this is a
sufficient default value. Do you have any motivations to set it to -1?
Guozhang
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:42 AM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
> For consistency, should we also set retention.ms to
Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding)
-Bill
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:42 PM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
> For consistency, should we also set retention.ms to -1 instead of
> Long.MAX_VALUE?
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:59 PM Manikumar
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Thanks
+1 (non binding)
For consistency, should we also set retention.ms to -1 instead of
Long.MAX_VALUE?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:59 PM Manikumar wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:04 PM Damian Guy wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 01:59, John
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the KIP.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:04 PM Damian Guy wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 01:59, John Roesler wrote:
>
> > +1 (nonbinding) from me.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:08 PM Guozhang Wang
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > I'd like to directly
+1
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 01:59, John Roesler wrote:
> +1 (nonbinding) from me.
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:08 PM Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'd like to directly start a voting thread on this simple KIP to change
> the
> > default override values for repartition topics:
+1 (nonbinding) from me.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:08 PM Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I'd like to directly start a voting thread on this simple KIP to change the
> default override values for repartition topics:
>
>
>
Hello folks,
I'd like to directly start a voting thread on this simple KIP to change the
default override values for repartition topics:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-443%3A+Return+to+default+segment.ms+and+segment.index.bytes+in+Streams+repartition+topics
The related PR
12 matches
Mail list logo
