> Should we allow the user to create the non-partitioned topic name like > `persistent://tenant/namespace/localname-partition-0`?
+1, I support this to be the default behavior. But we need to consider the compatibility issue, so maybe the check should happen on the server side and it can be turned off with a flag. Thanks, Haiting On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 1:33 PM <mattisonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
