Hi, Mattison, > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`?
+1 for rejecting this operation. Otherwise, the same issue will also arise. We should disallow the user to create a topic that contains the suffix `-partition-X`. Thanks, Zike Yang On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM 丛搏 <bog...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Mattison, > > > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? > > I think we should disallow creation. This will cause the partition > metadata to be incorrect. > > If the current behavior is to allow the creation, modifying it would > be a breaking change. We include this modification in the next > version, no need to cherry-pick to the old branch > > Thanks, > Bo > > > > <mattisonc...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月29日周四 13:33写道： > > > > Hi, All > > > > I have another question that needs to discuss. > > > > Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`? > > > > If so, this is a little confusing with the partitioned topic. > > > > e.g.: > > TopicName#isPartitioned method. > > > > Best, > > Mattison > > On Dec 28, 2022, 12:43 +0800, mattisonc...@gmail.com, wrote: > > > Hi, All > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion of this behaviour change as follow. > > > > > > The issue is described here: > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19085 > > > And the fix PR here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19086 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Behaviour change: > > > > > > Before: we can create non-existent persistent partitions. > > > > > > After: we will get `PulsarClientException.TopicDoesNotExistException` > > > when we create non-existent persistent partitions. > > > > > > Please feel free to leave comments if you have any concerns. > > > > > > Best, > > > Mattison
