jolshan commented on code in PR #15364:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/15364#discussion_r1523564661
##########
group-coordinator/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/coordinator/group/GroupMetadataManager.java:
##########
@@ -1211,13 +1192,99 @@ private
CoordinatorResult<ConsumerGroupHeartbeatResponseData, Record> consumerGr
// 1. The member reported its owned partitions;
// 2. The member just joined or rejoined to group (epoch equals to
zero);
// 3. The member's assignment has been updated.
- if (ownedTopicPartitions != null || memberEpoch == 0 ||
assignmentUpdated) {
+ if (ownedTopicPartitions != null || memberEpoch == 0 ||
hasAssignedPartitionsChanged(member, updatedMember)) {
response.setAssignment(createResponseAssignment(updatedMember));
}
return new CoordinatorResult<>(records, response);
}
+ /**
+ * Reconciles the current assignment of the member if needed.
+ *
+ * @param groupId The group id.
+ * @param member The member to reconcile.
+ * @param currentPartitionEpoch The function returning the current epoch of
+ * a given partition.
+ * @param targetAssignmentEpoch The target assignment epoch.
+ * @param targetAssignment The target assignment.
+ * @param ownedTopicPartitions The list of partitions owned by the
member. This
+ * is reported in the ConsumerGroupHeartbeat
API and
+ * it could be null if not provided.
+ * @param records The list to accumulate any new records.
+ * @return The received member if no changes have been made; or a new
+ * member containing the new assignment.
+ */
+ private ConsumerGroupMember maybeReconcile(
+ String groupId,
+ ConsumerGroupMember member,
+ BiFunction<Uuid, Integer, Integer> currentPartitionEpoch,
+ int targetAssignmentEpoch,
+ Assignment targetAssignment,
+ List<ConsumerGroupHeartbeatRequestData.TopicPartitions>
ownedTopicPartitions,
+ List<Record> records
+ ) {
+ if (member.isReconciledTo(targetAssignmentEpoch)) {
+ return member;
+ }
+
+ ConsumerGroupMember updatedMember = new
CurrentAssignmentBuilder(member)
+ .withTargetAssignment(targetAssignmentEpoch, targetAssignment)
+ .withCurrentPartitionEpoch(currentPartitionEpoch)
+ .withOwnedTopicPartitions(ownedTopicPartitions)
+ .build();
+
+ if (!updatedMember.equals(member)) {
+ records.add(newCurrentAssignmentRecord(groupId, updatedMember));
+
+ log.info("[GroupId {}] Member {} new assignment state: epoch={},
previousEpoch={}, state={}, "
+ + "assignedPartitions={} and revokedPartitions={}.",
+ groupId, updatedMember.memberId(),
updatedMember.memberEpoch(), updatedMember.previousMemberEpoch(),
updatedMember.state(),
+ formatAssignment(updatedMember.assignedPartitions()),
formatAssignment(updatedMember.revokedPartitions()));
+
+ if (updatedMember.state() == MemberState.UNREVOKED_PARTITIONS) {
+ scheduleConsumerGroupRebalanceTimeout(
+ groupId,
+ updatedMember.memberId(),
+ updatedMember.memberEpoch(),
+ updatedMember.rebalanceTimeoutMs()
+ );
+ } else {
Review Comment:
Ah. I was actually just investigating an incident where we had an issue with
a deleted partition with the old protocol. 😅
So this makes sense. I guess my only remaining question is whether there is
a case where we could get stuck not consuming an existing partition that is
assigned to a live member, but that member is not able to get the assignment
but is able to heartbeat. This is the case where an assignment timeout could
also free this assigned partition to be assigned to another member that may be
able to take it.
I agree though that it is better in the current state (not blocking the
members from getting to the reconcillation etc).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
