[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17872001#comment-17872001
]
David Jacot commented on KAFKA-17116:
-------------------------------------
At the moment, I lean towards option #1 – generating the member id on the
client. I think that we should do a small KIP to make this choice explicit.
KIP-848 is already to big and has been dragging for too long. I would also bump
the version of the ConsumerGroupHeartbeat RPC to 1 (or whatever is next) to
actually require the member id in all requests from this version. We would
basically not support generating the member id on the server side anymore. This
seems better than continuing to accept both if we believe that generating the
member id on the server is not good in the end. Does it make sense? [~lianetm]
[~chia7712] [~emasab] [~frankvicky]
> New consumer may not send effective leave group if member ID received after
> close
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-17116
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17116
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: clients, consumer
> Affects Versions: 3.8.0
> Reporter: Lianet Magrans
> Assignee: TengYao Chi
> Priority: Major
> Labels: kip-848-client-support
> Fix For: 3.9.0
>
>
> If the new consumer is closed after sending a HB to join, but before
> receiving the response to it, it will send a leave group request but without
> member ID (will simply fail with UNKNOWN_MEMBER_ID). This will make that the
> broker will have a registered new member, for which it will never receive a
> leave request for it.
> # consumer.subscribe -> sends HB to join, transitions to JOINING
> # consumer.close -> will transition to LEAVING and send HB with epoch -1
> (without waiting for in-flight requests)
> # consumer receives response to initial HB, containing the assigned member
> ID. It will simply ignore it because it's not in the group anymore
> (UNSUBSCRIBED)
> Note that the expectation, with the current logic, and main downsides of this
> are:
> # If the case was that the member received partitions on the first HB, those
> partitions won't be re-assigned (broker waiting for the closed consumer to
> reconcile them), until the rebalance timeout expires.
> # Even if no partitions were assigned to it, the member will remain in the
> group from the broker point of view (but not from the client POV). The member
> will be eventually kicked out for not sending HBs, but only when it's session
> timeout expires.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
