Emit GROUP_JOIN event on stale partition assignments - #937
Merged
Conversation
ankon
reviewed
Nov 2, 2020
JaapRood
approved these changes
Nov 2, 2020
JaapRood
left a comment
JaapRood
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haven't ran it, but looks good to me.
Regarding the naming of GROUP_JOIN: you're right that this is more about the rebalance, but more problematic than that is it being an instrument event rather than a first class API on the consumer. If we want to enable exactly-once processing, it's required, as to be able to deal with the sync barrier correctly see a comment on an related issue and slack conversation about it.
None of that should block merging this fix, but something to keep in mind when planning to make changes in that area 🙂.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Doing this, it occurs to me that
GROUP_JOINis not exactly the right name for this event. It's more likeREBALANCEDorGROUP_STABLEor something, as it implies that the consumer has not only joined the group but also gone through the synchronization barrier.Regardless, the join + sync is moved into the consumer group instead of living in the runner, and the
joinandsyncmethods become private so that we don't have the same issue again somewhere else.Fixes #923