Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-24283][connector/pulsar] Use stick key consumer in Key_Shared subscription. #17283

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 14, 2021

Conversation

syhily
Copy link
Contributor

@syhily syhily commented Sep 14, 2021

What is the purpose of the change

Use stick key consumer in Key_Shared subscription. This would make sure Pulsar won't treat the Flink reader as a shared consumer.

This fix apache/pulsar#12035

Brief change log

  • Change consumer type in PulsarSourceEnumerator

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as PulsarSourceKeySharedE2ECase in another PR.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

…subscription. This would make sure Pulsar won't treat the flink reader as a shared consumer.

This fix apache/pulsar#12035
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 9a64e19 (Tue Sep 14 15:17:06 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Sep 14, 2021

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I will in a bit

Copy link
Contributor

@dawidwys dawidwys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@dawidwys dawidwys merged commit 724fb3d into apache:master Sep 14, 2021
@syhily syhily deleted the hotfix/sticky-key-consuming branch September 14, 2021 19:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants