Hi, Dong, Yes, this change makes sense to me.
Thanks, Jun On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun and everyone, > > I would like to change the KIP in the following way. Currently, if any > replica if offline, the purge result for a partition will > be NotEnoughReplicasException and its low_watermark will be 0. The > motivation for this approach is that we want to guarantee that the data > before purgedOffset has been deleted on all replicas of this partition if > purge result indicates success. > > But this approach seems too conservative. It should be sufficient in most > cases to just tell user success and set low_watermark to minimum > logStartOffset of all live replicas in the PurgeResponse if logStartOffset > of all live replicas have reached purgedOffset. This is because for an > offline replicas to become online and be elected leader, it should have > received one FetchReponse from the current leader which should tell it to > purge beyond purgedOffset. The benefit of doing this change is that we can > allow purge operation to succeed when some replica is offline. > > Are you OK with this change? If so, I will go ahead to update the KIP and > implement this behavior. > > Thanks, > Dong > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Jun, > > > > Do you have time to review the KIP again or vote for it? > > > > Hey Ewen, > > > > Can you also review the KIP again or vote for it? I have discussed with > > Radai and Becket regarding your concern. We still think putting it in > Admin > > Client seems more intuitive because there is use-case where application > > which manages topic or produces data may also want to purge data. It > seems > > weird if they need to create a consumer to do this. > > > > Thanks, > > Dong > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Mayuresh > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Sorry for the duplicated email. It seems that gmail will put the > voting > >> > email in this thread if I simply replace DISCUSS with VOTE in the > >> subject. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > It seems that there is no further concern with the KIP-107. At this > >> point > >> > > we would like to start the voting process. The KIP can be found at > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-107 > >> > > %3A+Add+purgeDataBefore%28%29+API+in+AdminClient. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Dong > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -Regards, > >> Mayuresh R. Gharat > >> (862) 250-7125 > >> > > > > >
