Hi John Good thinking with regards to upgrade path between versions regarding over-the-wire instructions in SubscriptionWrapper. At this point in time I can't think of any new wire message instructions, but I would appreciate as many eyes on it as possible. I have just included the LEFT join in the last commit (about 10 min ago) along with INNER join. I do not think that RIGHT join and OUTER are possible given that there is no LHS key available, so LHSTable.outerJoinOnForeignKey(RHSTable) wouldn't even make sense. This is in contrast to the current LHSTable.outerJoin(RHSTable), as they are both keyed on the same key. I have buffed up the Integration tests and have tried to make them more readable to ensure that we're covering all the scenarios. I think that if we can get more eyes on the workflow showing the various LHS and RHS events and outputs then that may help us validate that we have all the scenarios covered.
With regards to the 2.3->2.4 scenario you described, I'm not entirely sure I follow. If they want to add a FK-join, they will need to rework their code in the KStreams app and make a new release, since the underlying topology would be different and new internal topics would need to be created. In other words, I don't think a rolling upgrade where the user introduces a FK join would be possible since their topology would necessitate a full KStreams reset. Is this what you meant? On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:10 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thanks, Adam! > > One unrelated thought that has just now occurred to me is that (unlike > the equi-joins we currently have), this join logic is potentially > spread over multiple Streams instances, which in general means that > the instances may be running different versions of Kafka Streams. > > This means that if we discover a bug that requires us to again change > the wire message (as you did in this proposal update), we need to > consider what should happen if the PK instance is newer than the FK > instance, or vice-versa, during a rolling upgrade. We should think > ahead to this condition and make sure the logic is forward compatible. > > Related: what about the initial case, when we release this feature > (let's say in 2.4)? What will happen if I decide to adopt 2.4 and add > a FK join together in one upgrade. Thus, the 2.4 member of the cluster > is producing the SubscriptionWrapper messages, and some 2.3 members > get the subscription topic assigned to them, but they have no idea > what to do with it? I'm not sure this is a problem; hopefully they > just do nothing. If it is a problem, it would be fine to say you have > to upgrade completely to 2.4 before deploying a FK join. > > Just want to make sure we anticipate these issues in case it affects > the design at all. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:38 PM Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Sigh... Forgot the link: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=74684836&selectedPageVersions=78&selectedPageVersions=74 > > > > I'll update it when I validate that there are no issues with removing the > > SubscriptionResponseWrapper boolean. > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:37 PM Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >Maybe just call it as (k, leftval, null) or (k, null, rightval)? > > > Done. > > > > > > > if you update the KIP, you might want to send a new "diff link" to > this > > > thread > > > Here it is: > > > > > > > Looking closely at the proposal, can you explain more about the > > > propagateIfNull field in SubscriptionResponseWrapper? It sort of looks > like > > > it's always going to be equal to (RHS-result != null). > > > I believe you are correct, and I missed the forest for the trees. They > are > > > effectively the same thing, and I can simply remove the flag. I will > code > > > it up and try it out locally just to be sure. > > > > > > Thanks again for your help, it is greatly appreciated! > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:54 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > >> I think the "scenario trace" is very nice, but has one point that I > > >> found confusing: > > >> > > >> You indicate a retraction in the join output as (k,null) and a join > > >> result as (k, leftval, rightval), but confusingly, you also write a > > >> join result as (k, JoinResult) when one side is null. Maybe just call > > >> it as (k, leftval, null) or (k, null, rightval)? That way the readers > > >> can more easily determine if the results meet their expectations for > > >> each join type. > > >> > > >> (procedural note: if you update the KIP, you might want to send a new > > >> "diff link" to this thread, since the one I posted at the beginning > > >> would not automatically show your latest changes) > > >> > > >> I was initially concerned that the proposed algorithm would wind up > > >> propagating something that looks like a left join (k, leftval, null) > > >> under the case that Joe pointed out, but after reviewing your > > >> scenario, I see that it will emit a tombstone (k, null) instead. This > > >> is appropriate, and unavoidable, since we have to retract the join > > >> result from the logical view (the join result is a logical Table). > > >> > > >> Looking closely at the proposal, can you explain more about the > > >> propagateIfNull field in SubscriptionResponseWrapper? > > >> It sort of looks like it's always going to be equal to (RHS-result != > > >> null). > > >> > > >> In other words, can we drop that field and just send back RHS-result > > >> or null, and then handle it on the left-hand side like: > > >> if (rhsOriginalValueHash doesn't match) { > > >> emit nothing, just drop the update > > >> } else if (joinType==inner && rhsValue == null) { > > >> emit tombstone > > >> } else { > > >> emit joiner(lhsValue, rhsValue) > > >> } > > >> > > >> To your concern about emitting extra tombstones, personally, I think > > >> it's fine. Clearly, we should try to avoid unnecessary tombstones, but > > >> all things considered, it's not harmful to emit some unnecessary > > >> tombstones: their payload is small, and they are trivial to handle > > >> downstream. If users want to, they can materialize the join result to > > >> suppress any extra tombstones, so there's a way out. > > >> > > >> Thanks for the awesome idea. It's better than what I was thinking. > > >> -john > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:37 AM Adam Bellemare > > >> <adam.bellem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Thanks John. > > >> > > > >> > I'm looking forward to any feedback on this. In the meantime I will > > >> work on > > >> > the unit tests to ensure that we have well-defined and readable > > >> coverage. > > >> > > > >> > At the moment I cannot see a way around emitting (k,null) whenever > we > > >> emit > > >> > an event that lacks a matching foreign key on the RHS, except in the > > >> > (k,null) -> (k,fk) case. > > >> > If this LHS oldValue=null, we know we would have emitted a deletion > and > > >> so > > >> > (k,null) would be emitted out of the join. In this case we don't > need to > > >> > send another null. > > >> > > > >> > Adam > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:53 AM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Adam, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the proposed revision to your KIP > > >> > > ( > > >> > > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=74684836&selectedPageVersions=77&selectedPageVersions=74 > > >> > > ) > > >> > > > > >> > > in response to the concern pointed out during code review > > >> > > (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5527#issuecomment-505137962 > ) > > >> > > > > >> > > We should have a brief discussion thread (here) in the mailing > list to > > >> > > make sure everyone who wants to gets a chance to consider the > > >> > > modification to the design. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > -John > > >> > > > > >> > > > >
