Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Il Sab 31 Dic 2022, 08:09 Haiting Jiang ha scritto: > > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? > I don't think this is currently possible. And if it is possible I am 100% that that topic won't work. Did

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

> Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? +1, I support this to be the default behavior. But we need to consider the compatibility issue, so maybe the check should happen on the server side and it can be

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

+1 Thanks, Yunze On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 5:31 PM Zike Yang wrote: > > Hi, Mattison, > > > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? > > +1 for rejecting this operation. Otherwise, the same issue will also >

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, Mattison, > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? +1 for rejecting this operation. Otherwise, the same issue will also arise. We should disallow the user to create a topic that contains the suffix

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi Mattison, > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? I think we should disallow creation. This will cause the partition metadata to be incorrect. If the current behavior is to allow the creation,

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, All I have another question that needs to discuss. Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? If so, this is a little confusing with the partitioned topic. e.g.: TopicName#isPartitioned method. Best,

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, Enrico > Please note that the new test case is about non-persistent topics I'm sorry, It's my mistake, the non-persistent already fix this problem, I need to change the test topic name to persistent. Best, Mattison On Dec 28, 2022, 16:27 +0800, Enrico Olivelli , wrote: > I agree with you. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi Mattison, I'm not sure if this is the current behavior, I left a comment in the PR Thanks, Bo Enrico Olivelli 于2022年12月28日周三 16:27写道： > > I agree with you. > > Please note that the new test case is about non-persistent topics > > is it expected ? > > Enrico > > Il giorno mer 28 dic 2022

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

I agree with you. Please note that the new test case is about non-persistent topics is it expected ? Enrico Il giorno mer 28 dic 2022 alle ore 07:58 Yubiao Feng ha scritto: > > Hi qiang > > I think this is a necessary fix, and it would be nice if more explicit > errors were given to the

Re: [DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi qiang I think this is a necessary fix, and it would be nice if more explicit errors were given to the client. Thanks Yubiao On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:43 PM wrote: > Hi, All > > I'd like to start a discussion of this behaviour change as follow. > > The issue is described here: >

[DISCUSS] Reject create non-existent persistent partitions.

Hi, All I'd like to start a discussion of this behaviour change as follow. The issue is described here:  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19085 And the fix PR here:  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19086 --- Behaviour change: Before: we can create non-existent persistent