Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-03-20 Thread Justine Olshan
I will update that. Thanks David! On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 3:43 AM David Jacot wrote: > I think that adding a configuration makes sense. Could you mention it in > the public interfaces section? Could you also clearly mention the default > value? I suppose that the default value should/will

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-03-18 Thread David Jacot
I think that adding a configuration makes sense. Could you mention it in the public interfaces section? Could you also clearly mention the default value? I suppose that the default value should/will depends on the performance results that we get. Thanks, David Le sam. 18 mars 2023 à 00:53,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-03-17 Thread Justine Olshan
Hey all. I've updated the kip to include a configuration change. This will allow users to disable the verification step. This will be for performance-conscious customers who can sacrifice possible hanging transactions in order achieve latency goals. This is because the second AddPartition call may

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-23 Thread Justine Olshan
Yup -- those are the main changes! On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:44 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Justine. I checked the diff between the two versions on wiki, > seems the major changes are: > > 1) Move the `verifyOnly` field of the request into each transaction > and hence we no longer have any

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-23 Thread Guozhang Wang
Thanks Justine. I checked the diff between the two versions on wiki, seems the major changes are: 1) Move the `verifyOnly` field of the request into each transaction and hence we no longer have any top-level primitive fields. 2) Add a top-level `errorCode` field in the response. Is that summary

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-22 Thread Justine Olshan
Hey all, I've updated the KIP to slightly change some of the request and response specs for AddPartitionsToTxn. Nothing huge, but some points came up during PR review. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-890%3A+Transactions+Server-Side+Defense Thanks, Justine On Fri, Feb 3,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-03 Thread Justine Olshan
Thanks everyone! I'm going to close the vote. The KIP is accepted with five binding votes from Jason, Guozhang, Matthias, David (and me), and two non-binding votes from Colt and Artem. Thanks again, Justine On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:41 PM David Jacot wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, Justine. +1

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-02 Thread David Jacot
Thanks for the KIP, Justine. +1 (binding) On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 1:36 AM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Thanks for the KIP! > > +1 (binding) > > > On 2/2/23 4:18 PM, Artem Livshits wrote: > > (non-binding) +1. Looking forward to the implementation and fixing the > > issues that we've got. > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-02 Thread Matthias J. Sax
Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) On 2/2/23 4:18 PM, Artem Livshits wrote: (non-binding) +1. Looking forward to the implementation and fixing the issues that we've got. -Artem On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 2:25 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: Thanks Justine, I have no further comments on the KIP. +1.

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-02-02 Thread Artem Livshits
(non-binding) +1. Looking forward to the implementation and fixing the issues that we've got. -Artem On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 2:25 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Justine, I have no further comments on the KIP. +1. > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:34 AM Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > > +1.

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-01-23 Thread Guozhang Wang
Thanks Justine, I have no further comments on the KIP. +1. On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:34 AM Jason Gustafson wrote: > > +1. Thanks Justine! > > -Jason > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:46 PM Colt McNealy wrote: > > > (non-binding) +1. Thank you for the KIP, Justine! I've read it; it makes > > sense

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-01-17 Thread Jason Gustafson
+1. Thanks Justine! -Jason On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:46 PM Colt McNealy wrote: > (non-binding) +1. Thank you for the KIP, Justine! I've read it; it makes > sense to me and I am excited for the implementation. > > Colt McNealy > *Founder, LittleHorse.io* > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:46 AM

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-01-10 Thread Colt McNealy
(non-binding) +1. Thank you for the KIP, Justine! I've read it; it makes sense to me and I am excited for the implementation. Colt McNealy *Founder, LittleHorse.io* On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:46 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-890 which aims to

[VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

2023-01-10 Thread Justine Olshan
Hi everyone, I would like to start a vote on KIP-890 which aims to prevent some of the common causes of hanging transactions and make other general improvements to transactions in Kafka. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-890%3A+Transactions+Server-Side+Defense Please take a