KAFKA-19476: Correcting max delivery on write state failure and lock timeout#20310
Merged
apoorvmittal10 merged 3 commits intoAug 7, 2025
Merged
Conversation
adixitconfluent
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall LGTM, Just a minor comment
omkreddy
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2025
adixitconfluent
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixing max delivery check on acquisition lock timeout and write state
RPC failure.
When acquisition lock is already timed out and write state RPC failure
occurs then we need to check if records need to be archived. However
with the fix we do not persist the information, which is relevant as
some records may be archived or delivery count is bumped. The
information will be persisted eventually.
The persister call has failed already hence issuing another persister
call due to a failed persister call earlier is not correct. Rather let
the data persist in future persister calls.
Reviewers: Manikumar Reddy manikumar.reddy@gmail.com, Abhinav Dixit
adixit@confluent.io