|
| Date | 9/26/2023 09:40 |
| To | |
| Subject | Re: [DISSCUSS] PIP-298: Consumer supports specifying consumption
isolation level |
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your support.
I also think this should only be for the master branch.
Thanks,
Xiangying
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:34 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your support.
I also think this should only be for the master branch.
Thanks,
Xiangying
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:34 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> OK. I’ll agree, but I think the PIP ought to include documentation. There
> should also be clear communication about this
Hi -
OK. I’ll agree, but I think the PIP ought to include documentation. There
should also be clear communication about this use case and how to use it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 25, 2023, at 6:23 PM, Xiangying Meng wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> The uncommitted transactions do not impact actual
Hi Dave,
The uncommitted transactions do not impact actual users' bank accounts.
Business Processing System E only reads committed transactional
messages and operates users' accounts. It needs Exactly-once semantic.
Real-time Monitoring System D reads uncommitted transactional
messages. It does
> On Sep 20, 2023, at 12:50 AM, Xiangying Meng wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
>
> Let's consider another example:
>
> **System**: Financial Transaction System
>
> **Operations**: Large volume of deposit and withdrawal operations, a
> small number of transfer operations.
>
> **Roles**:
>
> -
Thanks for Dave and xiangying.
Does anyone have any other questions or concerns?
Replied Message
| From | Xiangying Meng |
| Date | 09/20/2023 15:50 |
| To | dev@pulsar.apache.org |
| Cc | |
| Subject | Re: [DISSCUSS] PIP-298: Consumer supports specifying consumption
isolation level
Hi, all,
Let's consider another example:
**System**: Financial Transaction System
**Operations**: Large volume of deposit and withdrawal operations, a
small number of transfer operations.
**Roles**:
- **Client A1**
- **Client A2**
- **User Account B1**
- **User Account B2**
- **Request Topic
Hi Dave and Xiangying,
Thanks for all your support.
Let me add some background.
Apache Paimon take message queue as External Log Systems and changelog of
Paimon can also be consumed from message queue.
By default, change-log of message queue in Paimon are visible to consumers
only after a
Let me try a different approach. Please see the definition of a Pulsar
Transaction - https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/3.1.x/transactions/
If messages that are uncommitted are consumed that definition is no longer
true. If breaking the definition is going to be allowed to a consumer then the
Hi Dave,
I greatly appreciate your perspective, yet it leaves me with some
uncertainties that I am eager to address. Why would the introduction
of isolation levels constitute an insecure action?
>I think if this proceeds then the scope needs to be expanded to
>producers/admins needing to
Thanks. So, this is to support exfiltration of uncommitted transaction data?
This is IMO wrong and a security risk.
Pulsar already supports CDC through IO Connectors.
Kafka can be wrong about these isolation levels.
There is really no information in those Paimon issues. How is Paimon’s ability
Hi Dave,
This is an external request. Paimon has added support for Kafka but
has not yet incorporated support for Pulsar. Therefore, the Paimon
community desires to integrate Pulsar.
Furthermore, when integrating Pulsar into Paimon, it is desired to
enable the ability to configure isolation
My concern is that this pip allows consumers to change the processing rules for
transactions in ways that a producer might find unexpected.
I think if this proceeds then the scope needs to be expanded to
producers/admins needing to proactively allow transactions to be consumed
uncommitted.
I
Hi, all
This PR contributed to pip 298: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21114
This pip is to implement Read Committed and Read Uncommitted isolation levels
for Pulsar transactions, allow consumers to configure isolation levels during
the building process.
For more details, please
14 matches
Mail list logo
