Gentle ping.
~ Navinder
On Wednesday, 19 August, 2020, 06:59:58 pm IST, Navinder Brar
<navinder_b...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Thanks Matthias & John,
I am glad we are converging towards an understanding. So, to summarize,
we will still keep treating this change in KIP and instead of providing a reset
strategy, we will cleanup, and reset to earliest and build the state.
When we hit the exception and we are building the state, we will stop all
processing and change the state of KafkaStreams to something like
“RESTORING_GLOBAL” or the like.
How do we plan to educate users on the non desired effects of using
non-compacted global topics? (via the KIP itself?)
+1 on changing the KTable behavior, reset policy for global, connecting
processors to global for a later stage when demanded.
Regards,
Navinder
On Wednesday, 19 August, 2020, 01:00:58 pm IST, Matthias J. Sax
<mj...@apache.org> wrote:
Your observation is correct. Connecting (regular) stores to processors
is necessary to "merge" sub-topologies into single ones if a store is
shared. -- For global stores, the structure of the program does not
change and thus connecting srocessors to global stores is not required.
Also given our experience with restoring regular state stores (ie,
partial processing of task that don't need restore), it seems better to
pause processing and move all CPU and network resources to the global
thread to rebuild the global store as soon as possible instead of
potentially slowing down the restore in order to make progress on some
tasks.
Of course, if we collect real world experience and it becomes an issue,
we could still try to change it?
-Matthias
On 8/18/20 3:31 PM, John Roesler wrote:
> Thanks Matthias,
>
> Sounds good. I'm on board with no public API change and just
> recovering instead of crashing.
>
> Also, to be clear, I wouldn't drag KTables into it; I was
> just trying to wrap my head around the congruity of our
> choice for GlobalKTable with respect to KTable.
>
> I agree that whatever we decide to do would probably also
> resolve KAFKA-7380.
>
> Moving on to discuss the behavior change, I'm wondering if
> we really need to block all the StreamThreads. It seems like
> we only need to prevent processing on any task that's
> connected to the GlobalStore.
>
> I just took a look at the topology building code, and it
> actually seems that connections to global stores don't need
> to be declared. That's a bummer, since it means that we
> really do have to stop all processing while the global
> thread catches up.
>
> Changing this seems like it'd be out of scope right now, but
> I bring it up in case I'm wrong and it actually is possible
> to know which specific tasks need to be synchronized with
> which global state stores. If we could know that, then we'd
> only have to block some of the tasks, not all of the
> threads.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 14:10 -0700, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>> Thanks for the discussion.
>>
>> I agree that this KIP is justified in any case -- even if we don't
>> change public API, as the change in behavior is significant.
>>
>> A better documentation for cleanup policy is always good (even if I am
>> not aware of any concrete complaints atm that users were not aware of
>> the implications). Of course, for a regular KTable, one can
>> enable/disable the source-topic-changelog optimization and thus can use
>> a non-compacted topic for this case, what is quite a difference to
>> global stores/tables; so maybe it's worth to point out this difference
>> explicitly.
>>
>> As mentioned before, the main purpose of the original Jira was to avoid
>> the crash situation but to allow for auto-recovering while it was an
>> open question if it makes sense / would be useful to allow users to
>> specify a custom reset policy instead of using a hard-coded "earliest"
>> strategy. -- It seem it's still unclear if it would be useful and thus
>> it might be best to not add it for now -- we can still add it later if
>> there are concrete use-cases that need this feature.
>>
>> @John: I actually agree that it's also questionable to allow a custom
>> reset policy for KTables... Not sure if we want to drag this question
>> into this KIP though?
>>
>> So it seem, we all agree that we actually don't need any public API
>> changes, but we only want to avoid crashing?
>>
>> For this case, to preserve the current behavior that guarantees that the
>> global store/table is always loaded first, it seems we need to have a
>> stop-the-world mechanism for the main `StreamThreads` for this case --
>> do we need to add a new state to KafkaStreams client for this case?
>>
>> Having a new state might also be helpful for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7380 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/17/20 7:34 AM, John Roesler wrote:
>>> Hi Navinder,
>>>
>>> I see what you mean about the global consumer being similar
>>> to the restore consumer.
>>>
>>> I also agree that automatically performing the recovery
>>> steps should be strictly an improvement over the current
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> Also, yes, it would be a good idea to make it clear that the
>>> global topic should be compacted in order to ensure correct
>>> semantics. It's the same way with input topics for KTables;
>>> we rely on users to ensure the topics are compacted, and if
>>> they aren't, then the execution semantics will be broken.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2020-08-16 at 11:44 +0000, Navinder Brar wrote:
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your inputs. Since, global topics are in a way their own
>>>> changelog, wouldn’t the global consumers be more akin to restore consumers
>>>> than the main consumer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am also +1 on catching the exception and setting it to the earliest for
>>>> now. Whenever an instance starts, currently global stream thread(if
>>>> available) goes to RUNNING before stream threads are started so that means
>>>> the global state is available when the processing by stream threads start.
>>>> So, with the new change of catching the exception, cleaning store and
>>>> resetting to earlier would probably be “stop the world” as you said John,
>>>> as I think we will have to pause the stream threads till the whole global
>>>> state is recovered. I assume it is "stop the world" right now as well,
>>>> since now also if an InvalidOffsetException comes, we throw streams
>>>> exception and the user has to clean up and handle all this manually and
>>>> when that instance will start, it will restore global state first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had an additional thought to this whole problem, would it be helpful to
>>>> educate the users that global topics should have cleanup policy as
>>>> compact, so that this invalid offset exception never arises for them.
>>>> Assume for example, that the cleanup policy in global topic is "delete"
>>>> and it has deleted k1, k2 keys(via retention.ms) although all the
>>>> instances had already consumed them so they are in all global stores and
>>>> all other instances are up to date on the global data(so no
>>>> InvalidOffsetException). Now, a new instance is added to the cluster, and
>>>> we have already lost k1, k2 from the global topic so it will start
>>>> consuming from the earliest point in the global topic. So, wouldn’t this
>>>> global store on the new instance has 2 keys less than all the other global
>>>> stores already available in the cluster? Please let me know if I am
>>>> missing something. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Navinder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, 14 August, 2020, 10:03:42 am IST, John Roesler
>>>><vvcep...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> It seems like the main motivation for this proposal is satisfied if we
>>>> just implement some recovery mechanism instead of crashing. If the
>>>> mechanism is going to be pausing all the threads until the state is
>>>> recovered, then it still seems like a big enough behavior change to
>>>> warrant a KIP still.
>>>>
>>>> I have to confess I’m a little unclear on why a custom reset policy for a
>>>> global store, table, or even consumer might be considered wrong. It’s
>>>> clearly wrong for the restore consumer, but the global consumer seems more
>>>> semantically akin to the main consumer than the restore consumer.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, if it’s wrong to reset a GlobalKTable from latest,
>>>> shouldn’t it also be wrong for a KTable, for exactly the same reason? It
>>>> certainly seems like it would be an odd choice, but I’ve seen many choices
>>>> I thought were odd turn out to have perfectly reasonable use cases.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the PAPI global store goes, I could see adding the option to
>>>> configure it, since as Matthias pointed out, there’s really no specific
>>>> semantics for the PAPI. But if automatic recovery is really all Navinder
>>>> wanted, the I could also see deferring this until someone specifically
>>>> wants it.
>>>>
>>>> So the tl;dr is, if we just want to catch the exception and rebuild the
>>>> store by seeking to earliest with no config or API changes, then I’m +1.
>>>>
>>>> I’m wondering if we can improve on the “stop the world” effect of
>>>> rebuilding the global store, though. It seems like we could put our heads
>>>> together and come up with a more fine-grained approach to maintaining the
>>>> right semantics during recovery while still making some progress.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, at 02:04, Navinder Brar wrote:
>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, now as you explained using ‘global.consumer.auto.offset.reset’ is
>>>>> not as straightforward
>>>>> as it seems and it might change the existing behavior for users without
>>>>> they releasing it, I also
>>>>>
>>>>> think that we should change the behavior inside global stream thread to
>>>>> not die on
>>>>>
>>>>> InvalidOffsetException and instead clean and rebuild the state from the
>>>>> earliest. On this, as you
>>>>>
>>>>> mentioned that we would need to pause the stream threads till the
>>>>> global store is completely restored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without it, there will be incorrect processing results if they are
>>>>> utilizing a global store during processing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, basically we can divide the use-cases into 4 parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> - PAPI based global stores (will have the earliest hardcoded)
>>>>> - PAPI based state stores (already has auto.reset.config)
>>>>> - DSL based GlobalKTables (will have earliest hardcoded)
>>>>> - DSL based KTables (will continue with auto.reset.config)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, this would mean that we are not changing any existing behaviors
>>>>> with this if I am right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we could improve the code to actually log a warning for this
>>>>>
>>>>> case, similar to what we do for some configs already (cf
>>>>>
>>>>> StreamsConfig#NON_CONFIGURABLE_CONSUMER_DEFAULT_CONFIGS).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like this idea. In case we go ahead with the above approach and if we
>>>>>>> can’t
>>>>>
>>>>> deprecate it, we should educate users that this config doesn’t work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to hearing thoughts from others as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Navinder On Tuesday, 4 August, 2020, 05:07:59 am IST, Matthias J.
>>>>> Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Navinder,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for updating the KIP. I think the motivation section is not
>>>>> totally accurate (what is not your fault though, as the history of how
>>>>> we handle this case is intertwined...) For example, "auto.offset.reset"
>>>>> is hard-coded for the global consumer to "none" and using
>>>>> "global.consumer.auto.offset.reset" has no effect (cf
>>>>> https://kafka.apache.org/25/documentation/streams/developer-guide/config-streams.html#default-values)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, we could not even really deprecate the config as mentioned in
>>>>> rejected alternatives sections, because we need `auto.offset.reset` for
>>>>> the main consumer -- and adding a prefix is independent of it. Also,
>>>>> because we ignore the config, it's is also deprecated/removed if you wish.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we could improve the code to actually log a warning for this
>>>>> case, similar to what we do for some configs already (cf
>>>>> StreamsConfig#NON_CONFIGURABLE_CONSUMER_DEFAULT_CONFIGS).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The other question is about compatibility with regard to default
>>>>> behavior: if we want to reintroduce `global.consumer.auto.offset.reset`
>>>>> this basically implies that we need to respect `auto.offset.reset`, too.
>>>>> Remember, that any config without prefix is applied to all clients that
>>>>> support this config. Thus, if a user does not limit the scope of the
>>>>> config to the main consumer (via `main.consumer.auto.offset.reset`) but
>>>>> uses the non-prefix versions and sets it to "latest" (and relies on the
>>>>> current behavior that `auto.offset.reset` is "none", and effectively
>>>>> "earliest" on the global consumer), the user might end up with a
>>>>> surprise as the global consumer behavior would switch from "earliest" to
>>>>> "latest" (most likely unintentionally). Bottom line is, that users might
>>>>> need to change configs to preserve the old behavior...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, before we discuss those details, I think we should discuss the
>>>>> topic in a broader context first:
>>>>>
>>>>> - for a GlobalKTable, does it even make sense from a correctness point
>>>>> of view, to allow users to set a custom reset policy? It seems you
>>>>> currently don't propose this in the KIP, but as you don't mention it
>>>>> explicitly it's unclear if that on purpose of an oversight?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Should we treat global stores differently to GlobalKTables and allow
>>>>> for more flexibility (as the PAPI does not really provide any semantic
>>>>> contract). It seems that is what you propose in the KIP. We should
>>>>> discuss if this flexibility does make sense or not for the PAPI, or if
>>>>> we should apply the same reasoning about correctness we use for KTables
>>>>> to global stores? To what extend are/should they be different?
>>>>>
>>>>> - If we support auto.offset.reset for global store, how should we
>>>>> handle the initial bootstrapping of the store/table (that is hard-coded
>>>>> atm)? Should we skip it if the policy is "latest" and start with an
>>>>> empty state? Note that we did consider this behavior incorrect via
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6121 and thus I am wondering
>>>>> why should we change it back again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the main motivation for the Jira ticket was to let the runtime
>>>>> auto-recover instead of dying as it does currently. If we decide that a
>>>>> custom reset policy does actually not make sense, we can just change the
>>>>> global-thread to not die any longer on an `InvalidOffsetException` but
>>>>> rebuild the state automatically. This would be "only" a behavior change
>>>>> but does not require any public API changes. -- For this case, we should
>>>>> also think about the synchronization with the main processing threads?
>>>>> On startup we bootstrap the global stores before processing happens.
>>>>> Thus, if an `InvalidOffsetException` happen and the global thread dies,
>>>>> the main threads cannot access the global stores any longer an also die.
>>>>> If we re-build the state though, do we need to pause the main thread
>>>>> during this phase?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/20 8:48 AM, Navinder Brar wrote:
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have updated the KIP to make the motivation more clear. In a nutshell,
>>>>>> we will use the already existing config
>>>>>> "global.consumer.auto.offset.reset" for users to set a blanket reset
>>>>>> policy for all global topics and add a new interface to set per-topic
>>>>>> reset policy for each global topic(for which we specifically need this
>>>>>> KIP). There was a point raised from Matthias above to always reset to
>>>>>> earliest by cleaning the stores and seekToBeginning in case of
>>>>>> InvalidOffsetException. We can go with that route as well and I don't
>>>>>> think it would need a KIP as if we are not providing users an option to
>>>>>> have blanket reset policy on global topics, then a per-topic override
>>>>>> would also not be required(the KIP is required basically for that).
>>>>>> Although, I think if users have an option to choose reset policy for
>>>>>> StreamThread then the option should be provided for GlobalStreamThread
>>>>>> as well and if we don't want to use the
>>>>>> "global.consumer.auto.offset.reset" then we would need to deprecate it
>>>>>> because currently it's not serving any purpose. For now, I have added it
>>>>>> in rejected alternatives but we can discuss this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the query that I had for Guozhang, thanks to Matthias we have fixed
>>>>>> it last week as part of KAFKA-10306.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~Navinder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, 26 July, 2020, 07:37:34 pm IST, Navinder Brar
>>>>>><navinder_b...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, it took some time to respond back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “but I thought we would pass the config through to the client.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @John, sure we can use the config in GloablStreamThread, that could be
>>>>>>>> one of the way to solve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Matthias, sure cleaning the store and recreating is one way but since
>>>>>> we are giving an option to reset in StreamThread why the implementation
>>>>>> should be different in GlobalStreamThread. I think we should use the
>>>>>> global.consumer.auto.offset.reset config to accept the reset strategy
>>>>>> opted by the user although I would be ok with just cleaning and
>>>>>> resetting to the latest as well for now. Currently, we throw a
>>>>>> StreamsException in case of InvalidOffsetException in GlobalStreamThread
>>>>>> so just resetting would still be better than what happens currently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthias, I found this comment in StreamBuilder for GlobalKTable ‘* Note
>>>>>> that {@link GlobalKTable} always applies {@code "auto.offset.reset"}
>>>>>> strategy {@code "earliest"} regardless of the specified value in {@link
>>>>>> StreamsConfig} or {@link Consumed}.’
>>>>>> So, I guess we are already cleaning up and recreating for GlobalKTable
>>>>>> from earliest offset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Guozhan while looking at the code, I also noticed a TODO: pending in
>>>>>> GlobalStateManagerImpl, when InvalidOffsetException is thrown. Earlier,
>>>>>> we were directly clearing the store here and recreating from scratch but
>>>>>> that code piece is removed now. Are you working on a follow-up PR for
>>>>>> this or just handling the reset in GlobalStreamThread should be
>>>>>> sufficient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Navinder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 July, 2020, 12:53:36 am IST, Matthias J. Sax
>>>>>><mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atm, the config should be ignored and the global-consumer should use
>>>>>> "none" in a hard-coded way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if am still wondering if we actually want/need to allow users
>>>>>> to specify the reset policy? It might be worth to consider, to just
>>>>>> change the behavior: catch the exception, log an ERROR (for information
>>>>>> purpose), wipe the store, seekToBeginning(), and recreate the store?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw: if we want to allow users to set the reset policy, this should be
>>>>>> possible via the config, or via overwriting the config in the method
>>>>>> itself. Thus, we would need to add the new overloaded method to
>>>>>> `Topology` and `StreamsBuilder`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another question to ask: what about GlobalKTables? Should they behave
>>>>>> the same? An alternative design could be, to allow users to specify a
>>>>>> flexible reset policy for global-stores, but not for GlobalKTables and
>>>>>> use the strategy suggested above for this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/2/20 2:14 PM, John Roesler wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Navinder,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the response. I’m sorry if I’m being dense... You said we
>>>>>>> are not currently using the config, but I thought we would pass the
>>>>>>> config through to the client. Can you confirm whether or not the
>>>>>>> existing config works for your use case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, at 14:09, Navinder Brar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry my bad. Found it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prefix used to override {@link KafkaConsumer consumer} configs for the
>>>>>>>> global consumer client from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * the general consumer client configs. The override precedence is the
>>>>>>>> following (from highest to lowest precedence):
>>>>>>>> * 1. global.consumer.[config-name]..
>>>>>>>> public static final String GLOBAL_CONSUMER_PREFIX = "global.consumer.";
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, that's great. We already have a config exposed to reset offsets
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> global topics via global.consumer.auto.offset.reset just that we are
>>>>>>>> not actually using it inside GlobalStreamThread to reset.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Navinder
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 29 June, 2020, 12:24:21 am IST, Navinder Brar
>>>>>>>> <navinder_b...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>>>>>>> 1. I think there is some confusion on my first point, the enum I am
>>>>>>>> sure we can use the same one but the external config which controls
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> resetting in global stream thread either we can the same one which
>>>>>>>> users use for source topics(StreamThread) or we can provide a new one
>>>>>>>> which specifically controls global topics. For e.g. currently if I get
>>>>>>>> an InvalidOffsetException in any of my source topics, I can choose
>>>>>>>> whether to reset from Earliest or Latest(with auto.offset.reset). Now
>>>>>>>> either we can use the same option and say if I get the same exception
>>>>>>>> for global topics I will follow same resetting. Or some users might
>>>>>>>> want to have totally different setting for both source and global
>>>>>>>> topics, like for source topic I want resetting from Latest but for
>>>>>>>> global topics I want resetting from Earliest so in that case adding a
>>>>>>>> new config might be better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. I couldn't find this config currently
>>>>>>>> "global.consumer.auto.offset.reset". Infact in GlobalStreamThread.java
>>>>>>>> we are throwing a StreamsException for InvalidOffsetException and
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is a test as
>>>>>>>> well GlobalStreamThreadTest#shouldDieOnInvalidOffsetException(), so I
>>>>>>>> think this is the config we are trying to introduce with this KIP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Navinder On Saturday, 27 June, 2020, 07:03:04 pm IST, John Roesler
>>>>>>>> <j...@vvcephei.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Navinder,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for this proposal!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding your question about whether to use the same policy
>>>>>>>> enum or not, the underlying mechanism is the same, so I think
>>>>>>>> we can just use the same AutoOffsetReset enum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you confirm whether setting the reset policy config on the
>>>>>>>> global consumer currently works or not? Based on my reading
>>>>>>>> of StreamsConfig, it looks like it would be:
>>>>>>>> "global.consumer.auto.offset.reset".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that does work, would you still propose to augment the
>>>>>>>> Java API?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, at 23:52, Navinder Brar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> KIP:
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-406%3A+GlobalStreamThread+should+honor+custom+reset+policy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have taken over this KIP since it has been dormant for a long time
>>>>>>>>> and this looks important for use-cases that have large global data,
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> rebuilding global stores from scratch might seem overkill in case of
>>>>>>>>> InvalidOffsetExecption.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We want to give users the control to use reset policy(as we do in
>>>>>>>>> StreamThread) in case they hit invalid offsets. I have still not
>>>>>>>>> decided whether to restrict this option to the same reset policy
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> used by StreamThread(using auto.offset.reset config) or add another
>>>>>>>>> reset config specifically for global stores
>>>>>>>>> "global.auto.offset.reset" which gives users more control to choose
>>>>>>>>> separate policies for global and stream threads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to hear your opinions on the KIP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Navinder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
