vamossagar12 commented on code in PR #13801:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13801#discussion_r1273932710


##########
connect/runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/storage/ConnectorOffsetBackingStore.java:
##########
@@ -279,8 +284,51 @@ public Future<Void> set(Map<ByteBuffer, ByteBuffer> 
values, Callback<Void> callb
             throw new IllegalStateException("At least one non-null offset 
store must be provided");
         }
 
+        boolean containsTombstones = values.containsValue(null);
+
+        // If there are tombstone offsets, then the failure to write to 
secondary store will
+        // not be ignored. Also, for tombstone records, we first write to 
secondary store and
+        // then to primary stores.
+        if (secondaryStore != null && containsTombstones) {
+            AtomicReference<Throwable> secondaryStoreTombstoneWriteError = new 
AtomicReference<>();
+            FutureCallback<Void> secondaryWriteFuture = new FutureCallback<>();
+            secondaryStore.set(values, secondaryWriteFuture);
+            try {
+                // For EOS, there is no timeout for offset commit and it is 
allowed to take as much time as needed for
+                // commits. We still need to wait because we want to fail the 
offset commit for cases when

Review Comment:
   Thanks for the comment. Yeah it makes sense to block for EOS in this case. 
Regarding this =>
   
   > We should return a Future to the caller that corresponds to all of the 
offset flushes that we'd need to block on for an offset commit (i.e., the 
existing flush that we're performing, possibly preceded by a preemptive flush 
of tombstones to the secondary store).
   
   I did spend time trying to accomplish this but was not able to do it. 
Ideally I could have used something like callback chaining with 
CompletableFutures but I couldn't get it it working at that time. The problem 
is, if the writes to secondary stores fail for tombstone offsets, then we don't 
want to proceed further. That's why I thought it might be better to keep the 2 
flows separate but yeah, we do get a different Future objects in that case. 



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Reply via email to