Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

Hi, Xiangying Xiangying Meng 于2023年3月20日周一 23:56写道： > > Hi Congbo, > I think this is a great idea. > This is more efficient in filtering duplicate messages for a single > consumer. > And maybe more details about implementation should be shown in the proposal. we add the public interface, the

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

Hi, Yubiao : Yubiao Feng 于2023年3月20日周一 22:53写道： > > Hi Bo > > I think this is a good way to filter messages that the client has received. > > And I have two questions: > > 1. This is more powerful than the original way > (`acknowledgmentsGroupingTracker.isDuplicate(msgId)) to filter out >

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

This is a great problem to improve. What if we instead expand the CommandSubscribe [0] protocol message with a new field to represent the client's desired read position? This way, the client can tell the second broker where to start sending messages, and there is no need to send the messages

Re: [VOTE] PIP-253 Expose producer metrics for deadLetterProducer and retryLetterProducer

+1 (binding) Thanks, Yunze On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:52 PM Asaf Mesika wrote: > > +1 (non binding) > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:36 PM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Enrico > > > > Il Ven 10 Mar 2023, 21:36 Michael Marshall ha > > scritto: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server to configurable

Hi, Yubiao Thanks for your explanation. So from my understanding, there are actually two different goals in this PIP: * Exposing `httpMaxRequestHeaderSize` to solve the long name issue: https://lists.apache.org/thread/q1m23ckyy10wvtzy65v8bwqwnh7r0gc8 * Exposing `httpClientRequestBufferSize` to

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-247: Notifications for partitions update

Hi all Is there any other comments about this design :) Thanks, Xiaoyu Hou houxiaoyu 于2023年3月8日周三 16:22写道： > Hi Michael, > > > is there a reason that we couldn't also use this to improve PIP 145? > > The protocol described in this PIP could also be used to improve PIP-145. > However I think

Re: Moving PIP to status accepted - how?

FWIW - Anyone can request edit permission on ASF Confluence space, but the wiki page permission is more tricky, and it's more unfriendly for suggest changes (pull request). GitHub also lowers the priority of this function. I may prefer to follow the https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs pattern but

Re: Moving PIP to status accepted - how?

Hi Asaf, Currently, you can ping me with a vote result email link, and I'm glad to do you a favor. To keep the PIP up-to-date, it's another topic that we enhance the process a bit, like https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals. The issue here is that the wiki

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-257: Add Open ID Connect Support to Server Components

Update: the PR [0] to add the OIDC authentication provider module is ready for review. I plan to start looking at the function worker integration with k8s tomorrow. I hope to start the vote later this week. Thanks, Michael [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849 On Mon, Mar 20, 2023

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-257: Add Open ID Connect Support to Server Components

>> 2. Implement `KubernetesFunctionAuthProvider` with >`KubernetesSecretsAuthProvider`. >It looks like we add an authentication provider for the Kubernetes >environment. Is the OIDC authentication provider? The current KubernetesSecretsTokenAuthProvider [0] mounts the auth data used to create a

Moving PIP to status accepted - how?

Hi, Once the vote of my PIP concluded, I don't understand where is it registered by PMC members that the status of the PIP was accepted? This wiki page seems not updated: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki#accepted In the PIP process

[VOTE] PIP-249: Pulsar website redesign

The vote is closed with 5 +1 binding, and 1 +1 non-binding. Binding: 5 (Matteo, Sijie, Dave, Yu, Haiting) Non-binding: 1 (Tison) Thank you all! Asaf > On 15 Mar 2023, at 6:27, Haiting Jiang wrote: > > +1 binding > > Thanks, > Haiting > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:37 AM tison wrote: >>

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

Hi Congbo, I think this is a great idea. This is more efficient in filtering duplicate messages for a single consumer. And maybe more details about implementation should be shown in the proposal. Best regards, Xiangying On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:53 PM Yubiao Feng wrote: > Hi Bo > > I think

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

Hi Bo I think this is a good way to filter messages that the client has received. And I have two questions: 1. This is more powerful than the original way (`acknowledgmentsGroupingTracker.isDuplicate(msgId)) to filter out duplicated messages. Is it possible to turn off the original de-replay

[DISCUSS] PIP-260: Client consumer filter received messages

Hi, pulsar community: I started a PIP about `Client consumer filter received messages`. PIP: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19864 Thanks, Bo

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server to configurable

Hi Zike > Is it worth exposing `httpClientRequestBufferSize` to the proxy user? > Seems exposing `httpMaxRequestHeaderSize ` is enough to solve this > issue. We can set the buffer size in the proxy code based on the value > of `httpMaxRequestHeaderSize `. Is there any case that we need to >

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server to configurable

> private int httpClientRequestBufferSize = httpMaxRequestHeaderSize; Is it worth exposing `httpClientRequestBufferSize` to the proxy user? Seems exposing `httpMaxRequestHeaderSize ` is enough to solve this issue. We can set the buffer size in the proxy code based on the value of

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-246: Improved PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility checks without using avro-protobuf

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 4:47 PM SiNan Liu wrote: > 1. > > > message SearchReq { string query = 1; int32 page_number = 2; int32 > > result_per_page = 3;} > > Then second version I use: > > message SearchRequest { string query = 1; int32 page_number = 2; > > int32 result_per_page = 3;} > > > The

[VOTE] PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server to configurable

Hi Pulsar Community This thread is to start the vote for PIP 259. Discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/f11cld5cbc8sodhgvs5s28lw8nxsr9dc Issue: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19826 Implementation: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19514 Voting will stay open for at least

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar Go Client 0.10.0

Here is an update for the go client release: I will include this PR in the release: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/pull/994. It's a fix for a regression bug. And will also include this in-progress feature: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/issues/927 BR, Zike Yang On Sat,

Re: [VOTE] PIP-254: Support configuring client version with a description suffix

+1 (non-binding) Thanks, Zike Yang On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:54 PM Yunze Xu wrote: > > Hi all, > > This thread is to start the vote for PIP-254. > > Discussion thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/65cf7w76tt23sbsjnr8rpfxqf1nt9s9l > > PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19705

Re: [Discuss] PIP-256: Building Great Developer Experience with API Content

Hi Asaf, Thanks for your explanations! Now I understand your point. I've summarized the doc issues, solutions, corresponding changes, task status, and more here [1]. Also, add the link to the issue. PTAL, TIA! [1]