liangyepianzhou commented on PR #25706: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/25706#issuecomment-4405172666
@lhotari Thank you all for the comments and feedback — I've gone through them carefully. Based on the discussion so far, I've restructured the **Alternatives** section of the PIP. The key change is separating the analysis into distinct layers: 1. **Problem Classification (P1–P5)**: First, explicitly enumerate the cascading problems that arise when a Consumer is stuck under Key_Shared, and classify which ones this PIP **must** solve versus which can be mitigated through other means. I believe we should align on this before debating solutions — not every problem needs to be solved in this PIP, and a scheme should not be rejected simply because it doesn't address secondary concerns. 2. **Core Problem Resolution Table**: A side-by-side comparison of all alternatives (Overflow ML + A through E) against each problem, making it clear what each scheme does and does not solve. 3. **Cost Table**: What each alternative introduces in terms of extra storage, I/O, sustained hot-key viability, and client transparency. 4. **Summary**: A concise evaluation of why Overflow ML and Auxiliary Cursor are the only two schemes that address both P1 and P2, and the trade-offs between them. This structure also has a practical benefit for PR review: each point (problem classification, per-problem resolution, cost dimension) can be discussed independently in its own comment thread, rather than getting lost in a single long-form reply. The updated PIP is ready for review. I'd suggest we start by aligning on the problem classification (the P1–P5 table) — once we agree on what must be solved, the solution comparison follows naturally. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
