Hi Chia-Ping, Thanks for the feedback.
chia_00: Good point :) I left share groups out because they don’t go through the `OffsetCommit` path that this metric is tracking. chia_01: That's a great thought. A few things come to mind if we were to head in that direction: (1) To prevent metric drift during group deletions or type changes, we’d need to track the protocol associated with each materialized offset. This ensures that we always decrement the correct protocol counter when an offset is updated or removed. (2) For the share protocol, since it doesn't use this offset path, we would still register the metric for consistency but keep its value at 0. On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 5:42 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Thanks for this KIP. I have a quick question for you > > chia_00: Would you mind describing the reason why the share group is not > included? I don't want to let it feel lonely. > > chia_01: Just a thought: is it possible to distinguish the > 'group-offset-count' by protocol? > > Best, > Chia-Ping > > On 2026/04/07 06:55:34 Nick Guo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start a discussion on > > KIP-1301: Deprecate Yammer-based metrics in `GroupCoordinatorMetrics`. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Z5U8G > > > > This KIP proposes deprecating the remaining legacy Yammer metrics in ` > > GroupCoordinatorMetrics` and replacing them with standard Kafka Metrics. > > This will complete the migration and fully unify the group coordinator's > > metrics interface. > > > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > >
