Hi all,

If there are no further comments. I plan to start a vote thread
on Monday.

Best,
David

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:16 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Hector,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> The idea is to add a flag to the onJoinLeader leader method. We
> must do this because the ConsumerCoordinator must be able
> to reconstruct its state while skipping the assignment part. That
> would definitely impact KIP-795. I need to look at your KIP.
>
> That's right. We are thinking about a new consumer protocol but
> we don't have anything concrete to share with the community yet.
> We hope to have something in the near future.
>
> Best,
> David
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:10 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Jason,
> >
> > I've updated the KIP based on your comments. Thanks for your
> > feedback!
> >
> > Best,
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:52 AM Jason Gustafson
> > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey David,
> > >
> > > Yeah, there might not be a simple option to address the scenario I
> > > described. Other than a broker-side solution, another way we could fix it
> > > is by adding additional metadata to the assignment. I do agree that it
> > > might not be worth the additional complexity.  At least we should probably
> > > update the KIP to describe the limitation.
> > >
> > > @Hector In regard to the new consumer protocol, it's only just beyond
> > > wishful thinking at this point. We are hoping to share some ideas with the
> > > community in the near future though.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:06 PM Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) <
> > > hgerald...@bloomberg.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi David,
> > > >
> > > > Is the idea here to skip calling performAssignment(...) on the
> > > > AbstractCoordinator.onJoinLeader(...) method, or adding a new boolean
> > > > parameter to the performAssignment(...) method? The reason I ask is 
> > > > because
> > > > I raised KIP-795 a few weeks back, which aims to add a public API for
> > > > AbstractCoordinator, which might change (or not) with this KIP.
> > > >
> > > > I see you also mentioned there's some discussions regarding a new 
> > > > consumer
> > > > protocol. Is this being discussed somewhere else? I'm curious to know 
> > > > how
> > > > would it work with other systems (like Kafka Connect or Schema Registry)
> > > > that rely on the rebalance protocol to handle resource assignments.
> > > >
> > > > Apologies in advance if these questions are off-topic for the discussion
> > > > at hand.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Hector
> > > >
> > > > From: dev@kafka.apache.org At: 01/24/22 09:08:58 UTC-5:00To:
> > > > dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-814: Static membership protocol should let 
> > > > the
> > > > leader skip assignment
> > > >
> > > > Hey Jason,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your comments.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding your first point. Yes, you have it right. Let me complement
> > > > the KIP to be clearer.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding your second point. That is right. New partitions would not
> > > > be detected while the leader is down. It is definitely not ideal but 
> > > > that
> > > > seems acceptable to me, at least as a first step. Adding partitions to
> > > > a topic is an infrequent event so the likelihood of having it while the
> > > > leader is down is rather low but that could happen.
> > > >
> > > > The only way to not suffer from this would be to monitor the metadata
> > > > changes on the broker side. This implies that we would parse both the
> > > > subscriptions and the assignments in order to have the full list of 
> > > > topics.
> > > > I am not sure that it is worth doing it at the moment given that we are
> > > > thinking about a new consumer protocol. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > I suppose that we would need both in the long term as the current 
> > > > protocol
> > > > is a bit weird at the moment so we need to fix it anyway. We could
> > > > use this KIP to fix the protocol and do a subsequent KIP in the future 
> > > > for
> > > > the server side monitoring if we need it.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 7:51 PM Jason Gustafson
> > > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey David,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the proposal. This was a tricky bug and I think your 
> > > > > approach
> > > > is
> > > > > probably the best way forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be helpful to add a little more detail to the proposal. When 
> > > > > the
> > > > > coordinator detects that the static leader is returning, it will set
> > > > > `skipAssignment` to true in the `JoinGroup` response. I believe the
> > > > intent
> > > > > is to return all member subscriptions in this response so that the 
> > > > > leader
> > > > > can monitor all topics subscribed in the group (which might be 
> > > > > different
> > > > > from the consumer's own subscription). The leader will then send an 
> > > > > empty
> > > > > `SyncGroup` request to collect its own assignment. Do I have that 
> > > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there might still be an edge case in this proposal (assuming 
> > > > > I've
> > > > > understood it correctly). In between the time that the leader shuts 
> > > > > down
> > > > > and is restarted, it is possible that new partitions are added to one 
> > > > > of
> > > > > the subscribed topics. The returning leader would not know about it
> > > > > because it has no way to collect the full assignment. Do you think 
> > > > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > a problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:27 AM David Jacot <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion for KIP-814: Static membership 
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > should let the
> > > > > > leader skip assignment. This is a small extension to the static
> > > > > > membership protocol
> > > > > > to address KAFKA-13435.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The KIP is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/C5-kCw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know what you think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

Reply via email to