Kirk
> Is the requested restructuring of the response “simply” to preserve bytes, > or is it possible that the fetch response could/should/would return > leadership changes for partitions that we’re specifically requested? > Moving endpoints to top-level fields would preserve bytes, otherwise the endpoint-information would be duplicated if included with the partition-data in the response. Right now, the top-level field will only be set in case leader changes for any requested partitions. But it can be re-used in the future, for which Jose has a use-case in mind shared up in the thread. KIP is now upto date with endpoint info being at top-level. > > 3. In the future, I may use this information in the KRaft/Metadata > > implementation of FETCH. In that implementation not all of the > > replicas are brokers. > > Side point: any references to the change you’re referring to? The idea of > non-brokers serving as replicas is blowing my mind a bit :) > > Jose, I missed this as well, would love to know more about non-broker serving as replica! -- Regards, Mayank Shekhar Narula
