Hi Rajan and Girish, Thanks for your reply. About the question you mentioned, there is some information I want to share with you. >If anyone wants to setup different replication clusters then either >those topics can be created under different namespaces or defined at topic >level policy.
>And users can anyway go and update the namespace's cluster list to add the >missing cluster. Because the replication clusters also mean the clusters where the topic can be created or loaded, the topic-level replication clusters can only be the subset of namespace-level replication clusters. Just as Girish mentioned, the users can update the namespace's cluster list to add the missing cluster. But there is a problem because the replication clusters as the namespace level will create a full mesh replication for that namespace across the clusters defined in replication-clusters if users want to change the replication policy for topic-n and do not change the replication policy of other topics, they need to change all the topic policy under this namespace. > Pulsar is being used by many legacy systems and changing its >semantics for specific usecases without considering consequences are >creating a lot of pain and incompatibility problems for other existing >systems and let's avoid doing it as we are struggling with such changes and >breaking compatibility or changing semantics are just not acceptable. This proposal will not introduce an incompatibility problem, because the default value of the namespace policy of allowed-clusters and topic-policy-synchronized-clusters are the replication-clusters. >Allowed clusters defined at tenant level >will restrict tenants to create namespaces in regions/clusters where they >are not allowed. >As Rajan also mentioned, allowed-clusters field has a different meaning/purpose. Allowed clusters defined at the tenant level will restrict tenants from creating namespaces in regions/clusters where they are not allowed. Similarly, the allowed clusters defined at the namespace level will restrict the namespace from creating topics in regions/clusters where they are not allowed. What's wrong with this? Regards, Xiangying On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:35 PM Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Xiangying, > > Shouldn't the solution to the issue mentioned in #21564 [0] mostly be > around validating that topic level replication clusters are subset of > namespace level replication clusters? > It would be a completely compatible change as even today the case where a > topic has a cluster not defined in namespaces's replication-clusters > doesn't really work. > And users can anyway go and update the namespace's cluster list to add the > missing cluster. > > As Rajan also mentioned, allowed-clusters field has a different > meaning/purpose. > Regards > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:56 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, Pulsar Community > > > > I drafted a proposal to make the configuration of clusters at the > namespace > > level clearer. This helps solve the problem of geo-replication not > working > > correctly at the topic level. > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21648 > > > > I'm looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > BR > > Xiangying > > > > > -- > Girish Sharma >
