codelipenghui commented on code in PR #22762: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22762#discussion_r1615383124
########## pulsar-client-tools/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/admin/cli/CmdTopics.java: ########## @@ -1097,10 +1099,23 @@ private class PeekMessages extends CliCommand { @Option(names = { "-n", "--count" }, description = "Number of messages (default 1)", required = false) private int numMessages = 1; + @Option(names = { "-ssm", "--show-server-marker" }, + description = "Enables the display of internal server write markers.", required = false) + private boolean showServerMarker = false; + + @Option(names = { "-sta", "--show-txn-aborted" }, + description = "Enables the display of messages from aborted transactions.", required = false) + private boolean showTxnAborted = false; + + @Option(names = { "-stu", "--show-txn-uncommitted" }, + description = "Enables the display of messages from uncommitted transactions.", required = false) + private boolean showTxnUncommitted = false; Review Comment: > Are there more considerations? For example, in the future, transactions might involve more isolation features. Yes, the major consideration is the consistency in the future. There are some discussions under the mailing list, e.g. https://lists.apache.org/thread/8ny0qtp7m9qcdbvnfjdvpnkc4c5ssyld. We'd better avoid using different terms for transaction messages. > Although the name "--transaction-isolation-level" is quite standard, but it seems to be inconsistent with the other two parameters. We can replace `--show-txn-aborted` and `--show-txn-uncommitted` with "--transaction-isolation-level". For `--show-server-marker`, I think it should be fine. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org