Attention: migration steps for multiple advertised listeners in 2.9

To anyone who is using the multi advertised listeners feature, an important bugfix was merged into Pulsar 2.9 that may affect you. > [Issue 12040][broker] Fix advertised listener confusion > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12353 You might have observed that version 2.8.1 had some

Re: Release 2.9.0....adding more PRs ? please don't

Thanks Enrico for the extra efforts there, I know my PRs were late to merge. -Eron On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:58 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hello, > I see that someone is adding PRs to Milestone 30 (Pulsar 2.9.0) > > we are pretty late on starting the release >

[HEADS UP] Forked branch-2.9

Hello, I have forked branch-2.9 (for the third time), any change you commit to master branch won't be released in 2.9.0. I am going to prepare a RC, so expect a VOTE email to be sent on Monday (I won't do this in the weekend, in order to let more people participate in the VOTE). This is the PR

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Node.js Client Release 1.3.2 Candidate 1

Hi Masahiro, If you VOTE then there will be 3 +1 (binding) Votes. Best Regards, Dave > On Oct 12, 2021, at 3:20 AM, Masahiro Sakamoto wrote: > > This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar Node.js client, version > 1.3.2. > > The artifacts are exactly the same as the first vote,

Re: Release 2.9.0....adding more PRs ? please don't

Il giorno ven 15 ott 2021 alle ore 04:50 r...@apache.org < ranxiaolong...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hello, Enrico: > > In version 2.9.0, do we need to consider whether transaction-related > features can be used in a production environment? This feature is expected > by many users. So do you need

Re: [DISCUSSION] PIP-106: Negative acknowledgment backoff

good proposal. I support it. I left a comment on the issue, about having a way to configure this from configuration parameters and not by passing a Java object Enrico Il giorno ven 15 ott 2021 alle ore 09:59 r...@apache.org < ranxiaolong...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Thanks PenghuiLi, I will try

Re: [DISCUSSION] PIP-106: Negative acknowledgment backoff

Thanks PenghuiLi, I will try to base this PIP to provide the corresponding code to implement. LGTM +1(non-binding) -- Thanks Xiaolong Ran PengHui Li 于2021年10月15日周五 下午3:56写道： > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12379 > > --- Pasted here for quoting convenience --- > > ## Motivation > >

[DISCUSSION] PIP-106: Negative acknowledgment backoff

https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12379 --- Pasted here for quoting convenience --- ## Motivation Apache Pulsar supports the at-least-once message delivery semantic which can tolerate the consumer failure such as the consumer write the data to the database but the database might offline