Hi Stanislav > > The flag is needed to distinguish a batch with a desired base offset of > 0, > from a regular batch for which offsets need to be generated. > If the producer can provide offsets, why not provide a base offset of 0?
a regular batch (for which offsets are generated by the broker on write) is sent with a base offset of 0. How could you distinguish it from a batch where you *want* the first record to be written at offset 0 (i.e. be the first in the partition and be rejected if there are records on the log already) ? We wanted to avoid a "deep" inspection (and potentially decompression) of the records. For the replicator use case, a single produce request where all the data is to be assumed with offset, or all without offsets, seems to suffice, So we added only a toplevel flag, not a per-topic-partition one. Thanks for your interest ! cheers Edo -------------------------------------------------- Edoardo Comar IBM Event Streams IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> wrote on 22/11/2018 22:32:42: > From: Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 22/11/2018 22:33 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-391: Allow Producing with Offsets for > Cluster Replication > > Hey Edo & Mickael, > > > The flag is needed to distinguish a batch with a desired base offset of > 0, > from a regular batch for which offsets need to be generated. > If the producer can provide offsets, why not provide a base offset of 0? > > > (I am reading your post thinking about > partitions rather than topics). > Yes, I meant partitions. Sorry about that. > > Thanks for answering my questions :) > > Best, > Stanislav > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM Edoardo Comar <eco...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stanislav, > > > > you're right we envision the replicator use case to have a single producer > > with offsets per partition (I am reading your post thinking about > > partitions rather than topics). > > > > If a regular producer was to send its own records at the same time, it's > > very likely that the one sending with an offset will fail because of > > invalid offsets. > > Same if two producers were sending with offsets, likely both would then > > fail. > > > > > Does it make sense to *lock* the topic from other producers while there > > is > > > one that uses offsets? > > > > You could do that with ACL permissions if you wanted, I don't think it > > needs to be mandated by changing the broker logic. > > > > > > > Since we are tying the produce-with-offset request to the ACL, do we > > need > > > the `use_offset` field in the produce request? Maybe we make it > > mandatory > > > for produce requests with that ACL to have offsets. > > > > The flag is needed to distinguish a batch with a desired base offset of 0, > > from a regular batch for which offsets need to be generated. > > I would not restrict a principal to only send-with-offsets (by making that > > mandatory via the ACL). > > > > Thanks > > Edo & Mickael > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Edoardo Comar > > > > IBM Event Streams > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > > > > > > Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> wrote on 22/11/2018 16:17:11: > > > > > From: Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > Date: 22/11/2018 16:17 > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-391: Allow Producing with Offsets for > > > Cluster Replication > > > > > > Hey Edurdo, thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > I have some questions, apologies if they are naive: > > > Is this intended to work for a single producer use case only? > > > How would it work if two producers were producing to the same topic with > > > offsets? > > > How would it work if two producers, one with offsets and one without > > were > > > producing to a topic? > > > Does it make sense to *lock* the topic from other producers while there > > is > > > one that uses offsets? > > > > > > Since we are tying the produce-with-offset request to the ACL, do we > > need > > > the `use_offset` field in the produce request? Maybe we make it > > mandatory > > > for produce requests with that ACL to have offsets. > > > > > > Best, > > > Stanislav > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:14 PM Edoardo Comar <eco...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > we've opened a KIP to improve data replication between Kafka clusters > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > INVALID URI REMOVED > > > > > > > > u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D391-253A-2BAllow-2BProducing-2Bwith-2BOffsets-2Bfor-2BCluster-2BReplication&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx- > > > > > siA1ZOg&r=EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=uUj9C3BdbYz0dDNA- > > > > > E6iXreg1M5hWiWgG6ClS86VIPI&s=Vav8_-N7_OpfYEW33yGOf_or8ESMUJ4S45t2g-EUWKg&e= > > > > > > > > We'd like to start a discussion, please post your feedback in this > > thread. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Edo and Mickael > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Edoardo Comar > > > > > > > > IBM Event Streams > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > > > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > number > > > > 741598. > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > > 3AU > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best, > > > Stanislav > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > > 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > > -- > Best, > Stanislav Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
