You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Alexander Sorokoumov <as...@confluent.io.INVALID> on 2022/09/01 11:16:01 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Hey Guozhang,
Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit, recover,
transactional) with @Evolving.
Best,
Alex
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Alex,
>
> Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in the long
> run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to determine if
> checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
>
> As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for a
> different reason, since as we add more state management functionalities in
> the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and hence
> keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in an easier
> path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
>
> Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hey Guozhang,
> >
> >
> > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional() because
> > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break the
> guarantees
> > we want in ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint for
> > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior under EOS
> > that we want to support:
> >
> > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown and
> restore
> > from that checkpoint.
> >
> > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during recovery after a
> > crash failure.
> >
> > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful shutdown.
> > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of deleting all
> > local data.
> >
> >
> > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3. Essentially, we
> > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing in
> > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods must allow
> > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn stores
> > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted data on
> > recovery.
> >
> >
> > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn state
> stores
> > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we remove
> > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will have to
> > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation of
> > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes. Since its
> > default implementation must always return either true or false, signaling
> > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted writes
> and
> > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local data even
> > after
> > a graceful shutdown.
> >
> >
> > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn state stores
> > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Alex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the replies!
> > >
> > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we
> > > should
> > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between transactional and
> > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind the
> > > interface. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we may always
> > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in which case
> we
> > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now in order
> > for
> > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to distinguish on
> whether
> > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its purposes? If
> > yes,
> > > please let me know.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > StreamsConfig
> > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned Materialized,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > >
> > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your suggestions:
> > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional RocksDB.
> > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are transactional based on
> > the
> > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from the
> proposal
> > > > scope.
> > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state store as
> > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> transactional
> > > > mechanism.
> > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> StoreSupplier
> > > > interface.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as evolving.
> As
> > > long
> > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we should
> > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between transactional
> and
> > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind the
> > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s. per-store
> > > spec,
> > > > I
> > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I think we
> may
> > > well
> > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are discussing about
> > the
> > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > >
> > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify transactional as
> either
> > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()" or
> > > > > "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > which
> > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options the library
> > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's not very
> > > > meaningful
> > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be transactional, while
> > > others
> > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean failure.
> > People
> > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional mechanisms
> to
> > > be
> > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores should be
> > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none" answer, and our
> > > > built-in
> > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all store types.
> > > > >
> > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if users would
> > choose
> > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional (e.g. if
> > their
> > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some store types,
> > but
> > > > not
> > > > > others).
> > > > >
> > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care, or need to
> > know
> > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime, except for
> > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the written
> > checkpoint
> > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But this check
> > > would
> > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint files.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this knob, since
> > for
> > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be sufficient
> > (see
> > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to specify that
> > via
> > > > the
> > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I think for
> > > either
> > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the Materialized
> level.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think we could
> > > > refactor
> > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the Stores
> > > factory,
> > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > transactional)
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > }
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl type level.
> > > > >
> > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that we would
> > > better
> > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely as an impl
> > > > detail
> > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we may, e.g. use
> > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> spill-to-disks
> > > > when
> > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in the
> future
> > > > should
> > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > >
> > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() / StateStore#transactional(): the
> > first
> > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer, for
> > > indicating
> > > > if
> > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as @evolving so that
> we
> > > can
> > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to both of you
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> transactional
> > or
> > > > > not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal. Earlier
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues with it.
> I
> > > tend
> > > > > to
> > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user experience to
> > control
> > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references to the
> > commit
> > > > > marker
> > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > implementation
> > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > implementation
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store implementation to the
> > > > bottom
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference implementation.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and recover() in
> > the
> > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > independently
> > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in the
> Overview
> > > > > section.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> cadonna@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll forward, I
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the 2-state-store
> > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state store
> > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to react to
> > crashes.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and effectively
> > rollback
> > > if
> > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store transaction. I
> think
> > > the
> > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details but provide
> an
> > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling backward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > implementation
> > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > implementation
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward or roll
> > back, I
> > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from recover().
> > > With
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where to start
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and recover()
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > independently
> > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make things
> > > clearer.
> > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would also be
> > > > helpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying questions. I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is crucial for us
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I removed
> > them
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where the
> > > offsets
> > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the last offset
> > > > committed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> StateStore#recover
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's look at
> > > steps 3
> > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > commits,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2]. The offsets
> > here
> > > > > come
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest offsets the
> > > > producer
> > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager methods -
> > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit goes over all
> > > state
> > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the offset
> > > obtained
> > > > in
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down those
> offsets
> > > for
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in the case
> of
> > > EOS.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in turn calls
> > > > > > > >
> ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > At
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to the
> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls StateStore#recover with
> > the
> > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned by
> > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > forward.
> > > > You
> > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog offset
> > > corresponding
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and write them
> > > down
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2. The main
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the previously
> > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the temporary
> store
> > > and
> > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3. We do not
> > know
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written to the main
> > > > store,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either wipe the
> > main
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to avoid
> > > > situations
> > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> consistent
> > > > state
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from step 3.
> > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4. We can't
> > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we write all
> the
> > > > keys
> > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the operation is
> > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5. Again, we
> > > can't
> > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous scenarios, but the
> > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys from the
> > > temporary
> > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and checkpoint.
> This
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is finished,
> but
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns the offset
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay because
> we
> > > will
> > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset. As
> > changelog
> > > > > replay
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a consistent
> > state.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural transition to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the checkpoint
> file
> > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the checkpoint
> file
> > > > after
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit. Same as
> > without
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as it is the
> > same
> > > > for
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of the
> > > state
> > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state store
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface only the
> > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the local state.
> > > This
> > > > > way,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations. Thanks to the
> > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> StateStore#recover
> > > > > returns
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The only
> > limitation
> > > > > here
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes that are not
> > yet
> > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First of all, I
> > am
> > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my understanding
> of
> > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it occured to me
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not straightforward as
> > it
> > > > can
> > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down with a crash
> > > > failure,
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that corresponds
> to
> > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed changelog
> > offset.
> > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded, {@code
> > false}
> > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the prototype's
> > > code.
> > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush(). As far
> as I
> > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If you do
> not
> > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you describe in your
> > KIP
> > > > by
> > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > to
> > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where the
> > > offsets
> > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow that you
> > were
> > > > so
> > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(), right?)
> > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > forward.
> > > > You
> > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state store can
> > > roll
> > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the flushing
> > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in general the
> state
> > > > store
> > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed state and
> > > > restore
> > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic partition.
> The
> > > > last
> > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint file.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also state:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the state
> > store
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was between #3 and
> #4
> > > > > during
> > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a valid
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the checkpoint file
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into the
> > checkpoint
> > > > file
> > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of the
> > > state
> > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state store
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback! I'll
> > definitely
> > > > add
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism in Stores
> > > factory
> > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and might add
> > the
> > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure why their
> > > creation
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()` function:
> it
> > > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover this
> > > state
> > > > > to a
> > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > offset.
> > > > And
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different than
> the
> > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've done
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in which
> case
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> Otherwise
> > > it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that right?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns an offset
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens *during*
> commit.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before the
> > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed offset,
> > > > depending
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in the
> > prototype
> > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit marker that
> > holds
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the store will
> > replay
> > > > the
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as the
> > changelog
> > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> function
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization if the
> > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional, we don't
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not really
> need
> > > this
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if it is not,
> > > we'd
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am going to
> > > remove
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in point 2.
> If
> > > so,
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this land!
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the type of
> store
> > > used
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis? This way,
> > > users
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or RocksDB,
> > > potentially
> > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for smaller stores,
> > but
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of uncommitted
> > > records
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval is 100ms.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it and browsed
> > the
> > > > WIP
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()` function:
> > it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover this
> > > state
> > > > > to
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > offset.
> > > > And
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different than
> the
> > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've done
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in which
> > case
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > Otherwise
> > > it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that right?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > function
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS. But
> the
> > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the local
> > state's
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated offsets"
> > > > anyways,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the starting
> offset
> > > as
> > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from changelog till
> > the
> > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned offset
> (which
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until the
> > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also return an
> > offset,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we just have a
> > > > default
> > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a flush,
> and
> > > > > returns
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > checkpointable
> > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean shutting down we
> > can
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value from
> "commit".
> > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we just have a
> > > > default
> > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe out the
> > local
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1, otherwise
> > if
> > > > not
> > > > > -1
> > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run, can this
> > > function
> > > > is
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the "transactional()"
> > > function
> > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their behaviors are
> > still
> > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your WIP PR,
> so
> > > > maybe
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but just let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the secondary-store
> > > > approach
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback about
> > memory
> > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and StateStore#recover
> > > methods
> > > > > as
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang, please see
> the
> > > > > comment
> > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than you
> > > suggested.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and IQv2.
> > > Transactional
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is really an
> > > > independent
> > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> unnecessarily
> > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and testing in a
> > > single
> > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the proposal.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a powerful
> > idea
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a different
> path
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2 state stores.
> > > > Instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest using a
> > changelog
> > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized state. This
> > > works
> > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK transaction
> and
> > > only
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use the
> changelog
> > > > offset
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather than
> > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back or forward
> > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider the write
> > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2 and #3, the
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction from the
> > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
> > store
> > > > can
> > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following changes to the
> > > KIP:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level config with
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how readCommitted will
> work
> > > when
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of weeks and
> > will
> > > > > resume
> > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the discussion in
> this
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as suggested by
> > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the secondary-store
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback about
> > > memory
> > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make transactional
> > > > implementations
> > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very helpful.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit here, I think
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of "enforce to
> only
> > > > > persist
> > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one here -- not
> > > > really
> > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and cons:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function to
> return a
> > > > token
> > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)` interface of
> > > StateStore
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated by the
> > token
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new functions,
> or
> > > they
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement the second
> > > > > function.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration, not
> feeling
> > > > they
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are persisted;
> get
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new value is
> > > 200).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4, we would
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do the
> > restoration
> > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and 200), then
> call
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the snapshot
> of
> > > > offset
> > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to enforce
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores that may
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can still
> > reduce
> > > > its
> > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for stores
> that
> > > can
> > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be more
> > efficient.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated logic
> > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support, and ALOS, 2)
> > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if it is big,
> 3)
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit more
> > complicated.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it guarantees
> EOS,
> > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist any
> data
> > > > > written
> > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives - in-memory
> > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store guarantee
> EOS
> > > by
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is committed
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does, but
> > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data to
> > > become
> > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are correct, the
> > > underlying
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams app calls
> > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store implementation can
> > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be able to roll
> > > back
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery. RocksDB's
> > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A considered
> > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted Changes,
> is
> > > the
> > > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> uncommitted
> > > > data
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we will need
> > to
> > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards going with
> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > transactionality
> > > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying state
> > > store.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned above is
> > > actually:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are persisted.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it guarantees
> > EOS,
> > > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist any
> data
> > > > > written
> > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> codebase
> > > > where
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does, but
> > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data to
> > > become
> > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that naturally
> out
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my previous
> > > > > question:
> > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store level, we would
> > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist any data
> > > until
> > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface the right
> > > level
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on top of the
> > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all the writes
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around memory
> > pressure
> > > as
> > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we just write
> > the
> > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great suggestions and
> > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and update the
> > > proposal
> > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for everyone. I will
> > also
> > > > > write
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the option
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the factories
> in
> > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think that this
> > idea
> > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP with
> > configuring
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing the same
> thing
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't find it
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch guarantees
> write
> > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it might
> leave
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure on write.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store can help
> > > reduce
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the proposal.
> > > Thank
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism now.
> > > Should
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this transactional
> > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> strange
> > > only
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with complementary
> API
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to readCommitted
> on a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional stores commit
> > on
> > > > > write,
> > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional stores
> > regardless
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at that
> > time
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset 200, but
> > > upon
> > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to log-end-offset
> would
> > be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> processing
> > > > from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not sure
> > how
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that the
> step 4
> > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place in the
> > codebase
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the transaction?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying state
> > > store.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been flushed
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the persistent
> > > > underlying
> > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be triggered
> > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> codebase
> > > > where
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would certainly be a
> > > > reason
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am going to
> update
> > > the
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions and
> > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams DSL with
> > > > built-in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state stores by
> > default
> > > > when
> > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps using
> PAPI
> > > will
> > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default behavior for
> > both
> > > > > types
> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> configuration
> > of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling method
> > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on the store
> > > builder
> > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on and off (as
> > > John
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do not have
> any
> > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory and I guess
> we
> > > will
> > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do not fit
> > into
> > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such an
> > exception
> > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to be
> included
> > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is a memory
> > limit
> > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is exceeded.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a good idea
> to
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad to see it
> > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many devils would
> be
> > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a POC, either
> in
> > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than blocking any
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I personally am
> still
> > > not
> > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS with the
> state
> > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like this:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint file
> indicating
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100. Now a
> commit
> > is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains partially
> > > processed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the producer.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all changelog
> > > records
> > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog position,
> say
> > > 200
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > persisted.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up to offset
> > 200
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between those
> lines,
> > > for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line 5, the
> > local
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we would replay
> > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not violate
> EOS,
> > > > since
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at
> that
> > > time
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset 200,
> but
> > > > upon
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to log-end-offset
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > processing
> > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> sure
> > > how
> > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that the
> > step 4
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when creating
> the
> > > JIRA
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to provide a
> > > > transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which returns a
> > > > token,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200, and that
> > token
> > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction in step 5).
> > And
> > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be used to
> > > > rollback
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your proposal is
> > > different,
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and 4) above,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have the store
> > > image
> > > > at
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd like to
> learn
> > > more
> > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to make the
> point
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would drive the
> > > public
> > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and come back
> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM Sagar <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like a great
> > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration part
> > though.
> > > I
> > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on the
> > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the KIP seems
> > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it at the
> > > Supplier
> > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name =>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value assigned to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that rocksdb is the
> > > only
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the case.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory pressure
> > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it might make
> more
> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the memory
> > > > consumption
> > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's behaviour
> on
> > > IQ
> > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this is a great
> > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM John Roesler
> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your proposal. This
> > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but of course,
> > > > Streams
> > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug in their
> > own
> > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types of state
> > stores
> > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice to
> configure
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to configure the
> > > store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit off.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> option
> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> factories
> > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by default,
> > but
> > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here. However, as you
> > > > pointed
> > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users should be
> aware
> > > of,
> > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You could add an
> > Enum
> > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this approach:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> transactions
> > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend their memory
> > > > budget,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support to
> > in-memory
> > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the mechanism
> config
> > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are multiple kinds of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage and
> flushing
> > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me that there
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache, which is also
> > an
> > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to the cache
> > > > and/or
> > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you considered
> how
> > > all
> > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a "full"
> WriteBatch
> > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the proposed
> > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered in memory,
> > > until
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the same thing
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store can
> > help
> > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to be careful
> > > about
> > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that repeated
> > > processing
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form of dirty
> > reads
> > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of dirty
> reads
> > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During regular
> > > processing
> > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the changelog in
> > between
> > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes gets
> > committed
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll the store
> > > > forward
> > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new transactional
> mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't seem to fix
> > it.
> > > I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship of this
> > feature
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism
> > now.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> > > strange
> > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1, I'm unsure
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the current behavior
> > > also
> > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if readCommitted==false,
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the Batch, then
> the
> > > > store;
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip the cache
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> readCommitted
> > > on
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP, and my
> > > > apologies
> > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns in one
> > "batch"
> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45, Alexander
> > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making Kafka Streams
> > > state
> > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <https://www.confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> >[image:
> > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <mj...@apache.org>.
To close the loop on this thread. KIP-892 was accepted and is currently
implemented. Thus I'll go a head and mark this KIP a discarded.
Thanks a lot Alex for spending so much time on this very important
feature! Without your ground work, we would not have KIP-892 and your
contributions are noticed!
-Matthias
On 11/21/22 5:12 AM, Nick Telford wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me. I actually have most of a working
> implementation already. I'm going to write it up as a new KIP, so that it
> can be reviewed independently of KIP-844.
>
> Hopefully, working together we can have it ready sooner.
>
> I'll keep you posted on my progress.
>
> Regards,
> Nick
>
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 11:25, Alexander Sorokoumov
> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hey Nick,
>>
>> Thank you for the prototype testing and benchmarking, and sorry for the
>> late reply!
>>
>> I agree that it is worth revisiting the WriteBatchWithIndex approach. I
>> will implement a fork of the current prototype that uses that mechanism to
>> ensure transactionality and let you know when it is ready for
>> review/testing in this ML thread.
>>
>> As for time estimates, I might not have enough time to finish the prototype
>> in December, so it will probably be ready for review in January.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:24 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Sorry to dredge this up again. I've had a chance to start doing some
>>> testing with the WIP Pull Request, and it appears as though the secondary
>>> store solution performs rather poorly.
>>>
>>> In our testing, we had a non-transactional state store that would restore
>>> (from scratch), at a rate of nearly 1,000,000 records/second. When we
>>> switched it to a transactional store, it restored at a rate of less than
>>> 40,000 records/second.
>>>
>>> I suspect the key issues here are having to copy the data out of the
>>> temporary store and into the main store on-commit, and to a lesser
>> extent,
>>> the extra memory copies during writes.
>>>
>>> I think it's worth re-visiting the WriteBatchWithIndex solution, as it's
>>> clear from the RocksDB post[1] on the subject that it's the recommended
>> way
>>> to achieve transactionality.
>>>
>>> The only issue you identified with this solution was that uncommitted
>>> writes are required to entirely fit in-memory, and RocksDB recommends
>> they
>>> don't exceed 3-4MiB. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I
>>> think we'll find that this will be a non-issue for all but the most
>> extreme
>>> cases, and for those, I think I have a fairly simple solution.
>>>
>>> Firstly, when EOS is enabled, the default commit.interval.ms is set to
>>> 100ms, which provides fairly short intervals that uncommitted writes need
>>> to be buffered in-memory. If we assume a worst case of 1024 byte records
>>> (and for most cases, they should be much smaller), then 4MiB would hold
>>> ~4096 records, which with 100ms commit intervals is a throughput of
>>> approximately 40,960 records/second. This seems quite reasonable.
>>>
>>> For use cases that wouldn't reasonably fit in-memory, my suggestion is
>> that
>>> we have a mechanism that tracks the number/size of uncommitted records in
>>> stores, and prematurely commits the Task when this size exceeds a
>>> configured threshold.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time, and let me know what you think!
>>> --
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> 1: https://rocksdb.org/blog/2015/02/27/write-batch-with-index.html
>>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 19:31, Alexander Sorokoumov
>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Nick,
>>>>
>>>> It is going to be option c. Existing state is considered to be
>> committed
>>>> and there will be an additional RocksDB for uncommitted writes.
>>>>
>>>> I am out of office until October 24. I will update KIP and make sure
>> that
>>>> we have an upgrade test for that after coming back from vacation.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it
>> occurred
>>> to
>>>>> me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
>>>>> existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional,
>>> i.e.
>>>> by
>>>>> adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology,
>>>> without
>>>>> explicitly wiping the application state?
>>>>> a) An error.
>>>>> b) Local state is wiped.
>>>>> c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new
>>> RocksDB
>>>>> database is created for uncommitted writes.
>>>>> d) Something else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Guozhang,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit,
>>> recover,
>>>>>> transactional) with @Evolving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in
>>> the
>>>>>> long
>>>>>>> run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to
>>> determine
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for
>> a
>>>>>>> different reason, since as we add more state management
>>>> functionalities
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and
>>>> hence
>>>>>>> keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in
>>> an
>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>> path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional()
>>>> because
>>>>>>>> post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break
>> the
>>>>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>>> we want in
>>>> ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior
>>> under
>>>>> EOS
>>>>>>>> that we want to support:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown
>>> and
>>>>>>> restore
>>>>>>>> from that checkpoint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during
>> recovery
>>>>> after
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> crash failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
>>>>>> shutdown.
>>>>>>>> These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of
>>>> deleting
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> local data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3.
>>>> Essentially,
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing
>> in
>>>>>>>> StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
>>>>>>>> initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods
>>> must
>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>> all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn
>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>> should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted
>>> data
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> recovery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn
>>> state
>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>> post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we
>>>> remove
>>>>>>>> StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
>>>>>>>> ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will
>>>> have
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation
>> of
>>>>>>>> StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes.
>>> Since
>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> default implementation must always return either true or false,
>>>>>> signaling
>>>>>>>> whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
>>>>>>>> StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted
>>>>> writes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
>>>>>>>> initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local
>>> data
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> a graceful shutdown.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn
>>> state
>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>> and prevent that problem during recovery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <
>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the replies!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As long as we allow custom user implementations of that
>>>>> interface,
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
>>>> transactional
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> non-transactional implementations or change the contract
>> behind
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> interface. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we
>> may
>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in
>>> which
>>>>>> case
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now
>>> in
>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> backward compatibility edge cases we still need to
>> distinguish
>>> on
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>> or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its
>>>> purposes?
>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> yes,
>>>>>>>>> please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
>>>>>>>> StreamsConfig
>>>>>>>>>> specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
>>>>>> Materialized,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your
>>>>> suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>> * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
>>>>>> RocksDB.
>>>>>>>>>> * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are
>> transactional
>>>>> based
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> configured StoreType.
>>>>>>>>>> * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from
>>> the
>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>> * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state
>> store
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>> * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
>>>>>>> StoreSupplier
>>>>>>>>>> interface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as
>>>>> evolving.
>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> as we allow custom user implementations of that interface,
>> we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional implementations or change the contract
>>> behind
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> interface. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <
>>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
>>>>>> per-store
>>>>>>>>> spec,
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I
>>> think
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are
>>> discussing
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> following levels of per-store spec:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Materialized#transactional()
>>>>>>>>>>> * StoreSupplier#transactional()
>>>>>>>>>>> * StateStore#transactional()
>>>>>>>>>>> * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And my thoughts are the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * In the current proposal users could specify
>> transactional
>>>> as
>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>> "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()"
>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options
>> the
>>>>>> library
>>>>>>>>>>> provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
>>>>>>>>>>> Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's
>> not
>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>> to specify "some of the built-in stores to be
>>> transactional,
>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>> be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional,
>>>>>>>>>>> you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean
>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>> may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
>>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> used across stores; but for whether or not the stores
>>> should
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none"
>> answer,
>>>> and
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> built-in
>>>>>>>>>>> form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all
>>> store
>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * When using customized stores, users would usually go
>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if
>> users
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>> some to be transactional while others non-transactional
>>> (e.g.
>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> customized store only supports transactional for some
>> store
>>>>>> types,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> others).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * At a per-store level, the library do not really care,
>> or
>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> whether that store is transactional or not at runtime,
>>> except
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the
>>> written
>>>>>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>> files do not include those non-transactional stores. But
>>> this
>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint
>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this
>>> knob,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> built-in stores I think just a global config should be
>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>>>> (see
>>>>>>>>>>> below), while for customized store users would need to
>>>> specify
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I
>>> think
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>> case we do not need to expose such a knob on the
>>> Materialized
>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think
>> we
>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>> that function without introducing new constructors in the
>>>>> Stores
>>>>>>>>> factory,
>>>>>>>>>>> but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>> persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
>>>>>>>> transactional)
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
>>>>>>>>>>> as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>> public enum StoreImplType {
>>>>>>>>>>> ROCKS_DB,
>>>>>>>>>>> TXN_ROCKS_DB,
>>>>>>>>>>> IN_MEMORY
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
>>>>>>>>>>> ROCKS_DB));
>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above provides this global config at the store impl
>>> type
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that
>> we
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely
>> as
>>>> an
>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>> abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we
>> may,
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>> in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
>>>>>>> spill-to-disks
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in
>>> the
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be kept away from the users.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * StoreSupplier#transactional() /
>>> StateStore#transactional():
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>> flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer,
>>> for
>>>>>>>>> indicating
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as
>> @evolving
>>> so
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to
>>> both
>>>> of
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single email. I hope it is okay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We could, instead, have a global
>>>>>>>>>>>>> config to specify if the built-in stores should be
>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This was the original approach I took in this proposal.
>>>>> Earlier
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues
>>>> with
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> tend
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with them that it is probably better user
>>> experience
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>> transactionality via Materialized objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references
>> to
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>> marker
>>>>>>>>>>>> and rolling forward from the proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruno,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the KIP or provide it as an example of a
>> possible
>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I moved the section about the 2-state-store
>>> implementation
>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> bottom
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposal and always mention it as a reference
>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>> let me know if this is okay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
>>>> recover()
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread
>> but
>>>>>>>>> independently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the state store implementation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I described how commit/recover change the workflow in
>> the
>>>>>>> Overview
>>>>>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
>>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank a lot for explaining!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now some aspects are clearer to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I understand now, how the state store can roll
>>>>>> forward, I
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling that rolling forward is specific to the
>>>>> 2-state-store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state
>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations might use a different strategy to
>> react
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> crashes.
>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, they might apply an atomic write and
>>> effectively
>>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they crash before committing the state store
>>>> transaction. I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP should not contain such implementation details
>> but
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
>>>>>> backward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I would remove the details about the
>> 2-state-store
>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the KIP or provide it as an example of a
>> possible
>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since a state store implementation can roll forward
>> or
>>>> roll
>>>>>>>> back, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
>>>>>> recover().
>>>>>>>>> With
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where
>> to
>>>>> start
>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> restoration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
>>>>> recover()
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread
>> but
>>>>>>>>> independently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the state store implementation? That would make
>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> clearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would
>>>> also
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Bruno,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
>>>>>> questions. I
>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they cover the core of this proposal, so it is
>>> crucial
>>>>> for
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good call! I updated both the proposal and the
>>>> prototype.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. I would shorten
>>>>>>> Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I
>>>>> removed
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal and the prototype.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
>>> where
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> offsets
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into commit() and recover() come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the
>> last
>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changelog topic. The offset passed into
>>>>>>> StateStore#recover
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's
>>>> look
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> steps 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> and 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the commit workflow. After the
>>>>> TaskExecutor/TaskManager
>>>>>>>>> commits,
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a. updates the changelog offsets via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2].
>> The
>>>>>> offsets
>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest
>>> offsets
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> producer
>>>>>>>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without exception[4, 5].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b. flushes/commits the state store in
>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager
>>> methods
>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> flush/commit[7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit
>> goes
>>>> over
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that belong to that task and commits them with the
>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>> obtained
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down
>>> those
>>>>>>> offsets
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state stores, except for non-transactional ones in
>>> the
>>>>> case
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> EOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During initialization, StreamTask calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in
>> turn
>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores[10]. The prototype also calls
>>> StateStore#recover
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned
>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> recover()[11].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
>>> roll
>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention in the thread the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Flush the temporary state store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog
>> offset
>>>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state we are committing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and
>>>> write
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Wipe the temporary store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Delete the commit marker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2.
>>> The
>>>>> main
>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a consistent state that corresponds to the
>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset. StateStore#recover throws away the
>>>> temporary
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the last checkpointed offset.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3.
>> We
>>>> do
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keys
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the temporary store were already written
>> to
>>>> the
>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>> store,
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't roll back. There are two options - either
>>>> wipe
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward. Since the point of this proposal is to
>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>> situations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw away the state and we do not care to what
>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from
>> step
>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4.
>> We
>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between this and the previous scenario, so we
>>> write
>>>>> all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> keys
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary store. This is okay because the
>>> operation
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> idempotent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5.
>>>> Again,
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between this and previous
>> scenarios,
>>>> but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> store is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already empty. Even though we write all keys
>> from
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> temporary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> store, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation is, in fact, no-op.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Crash failure happens between step 5 and
>>>>> checkpoint.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you referred to in question 5. The commit is
>>>>> finished,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns
>>> the
>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay
>>>>> because
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replay the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog from the previously committed offset.
>>> As
>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>> replay
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idempotent, the state store recovers into a
>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last crash failure scenario is a natural
>>> transition
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how should Streams know what to write into the
>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the crash?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the
>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit.
>>> Same
>>>> as
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal, it should write the committed offset, as
>> it
>>>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Kafka changelog and the state store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue arises because we store the offset
>>> outside
>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
>>> state
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that returns the offset at which the state store
>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, we should include in the interface
>>> only
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the
>>> local
>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow more room for possible implementations.
>> Thanks
>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> idempotency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
>>>>>>> StateStore#recover
>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset that is less than what it actually is. The
>>> only
>>>>>>>> limitation
>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the state store should never commit writes
>> that
>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Kafka changelog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this. First
>>> of
>>>>>> all, I
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it works. Second, while writing this, it
>> occured
>>> to
>>>>> me
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#recover interface method is not
>>>>> straightforward
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we can change it like that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Recover a transactional state store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * <p>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If a transactional state store shut down
>> with
>>> a
>>>>>> crash
>>>>>>>>>> failure,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method ensures that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * state store is in a consistent state that
>>>>>> corresponds
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> {@code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelofOffset} or later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed
>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>> offset.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded,
>>>> {@code
>>>>>>>> false}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
>>>>>> prototype's
>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
>>>>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
>>> As
>>>>> far
>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If
>>> you
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, you don't get rid of the error room you
>> describe
>>>> in
>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> KIP
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a flush() and a commit().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. I would shorten
>>>>>>> Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
>>> where
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> offsets
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into commit() and recover() come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow
>>>> that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to post into this thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(),
>> right?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
>>>> roll
>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention in the thread the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
>>>> store
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward and finish the flush/commit."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does the state store know where it stopped the
>>>>>> flushing
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems an optimization to me. I think in
>> general
>>>> the
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should rollback to the last successfully committed
>>>> state
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> restore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from there until the end of the changelog topic
>>>>> partition.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint
>>> file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also
>> state:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4,
>> the
>>>>> state
>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with
>> the
>>>>>>>>> checkpoint."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How should Streams know that the failure was
>> between
>>>> #3
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> #4
>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a
>>> valid
>>>>>>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams does not know that the state of the
>>> checkpoint
>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> match with the committed state of the state store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how should Streams know what to write into
>> the
>>>>>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the crash?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue arises because we store the offset
>>> outside
>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
>>> state
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that returns the offset at which the state store
>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Nick,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback!
>> I'll
>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to configure the transactional mechanism
>> in
>>>>> Stores
>>>>>>>>> factory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via an argument as John previously suggested and
>>>> might
>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure
>> why
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> creation
>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rocksdb jni fails with
>> `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander
>>>> Sorokoumov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
>>>>> function:
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
>>> recover
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
>>>> passed-in
>>>>>>>> offset.
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is
>> different
>>>>> than
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed-in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
>>> we've
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint,
>> in
>>>>> which
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in
>> offset.
>>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is
>> that
>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns
>> an
>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the passed one is when the failure happens
>>> *during*
>>>>>>> commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the failure happens after commit but before
>> the
>>>>>>>> checkpoint,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `recover`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might return either a passed or newer committed
>>>>> offset,
>>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in
>>> the
>>>>>>>> prototype
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit
>> marker
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> holds
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the
>> store
>>>> will
>>>>>>>> replay
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as
>>> the
>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>> replay
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idempotent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the
>> "transactional()"
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
>>> EOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for
>>>>> `transactional()`:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization
>>> if
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional,
>> we
>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> wipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not
>>>> really
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if
>> it
>>>> is
>>>>>> not,
>>>>>>>>> we'd
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am
>>>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
>>>>>>>> KStreamImplJoin
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in
>>>> point
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
>>>>>>>>>> `commit/recover`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
>>>>>>>>>>>> nick.telford@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this
>>> land!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the
>> type
>>>> of
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis?
>>> This
>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or
>>> RocksDB,
>>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for
>> smaller
>>>>>> stores,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory pressure issues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of
>>>>> uncommitted
>>>>>>>>> records
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very small, because the default commit interval
>>> is
>>>>>> 100ms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
>>>>>>>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it
>> and
>>>>>> browsed
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> WIP
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
>>>>>> function:
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
>>>> recover
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
>>>> passed-in
>>>>>>>> offset.
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is
>>> different
>>>>> than
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed-in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
>>>> we've
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint,
>> in
>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in
>>> offset.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is
>> that
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the
>>> "transactional()"
>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
>>> EOS.
>>>>> But
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the
>>>> local
>>>>>>>> state's
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated
>>>>> offsets"
>>>>>>>>>> anyways,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the
>>>> starting
>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from
>>> changelog
>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-offset.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned
>>>> offset
>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> end-offset.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why not also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also
>> return
>>>> an
>>>>>>>> offset,
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we
>>> just
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a
>>>>> flush,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
>>>>>>>> checkpointable
>>>>>>>>>>>> offsets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean
>> shutting
>>>>> down
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value
>> from
>>>>>>> "commit".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we
>>> just
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe
>>> out
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run,
>> can
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-op.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, we would not need the
>>>>> "transactional()"
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their
>>> behaviors
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your
>>> WIP
>>>>> PR,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but
>> just
>>>> let
>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander
>>>> Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the
>>>>> secondary-store
>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation to address the
>> feedback
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and
>>>>> StateStore#recover
>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang,
>>> please
>>>>> see
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than
>>> you
>>>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and
>> IQv2.
>>>>>>>>> Transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is
>>> really
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
>>>>>>> unnecessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>> increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and
>>> testing
>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that implements changes described in the
>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a
>>>>> powerful
>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a
>>>>> different
>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2
>> state
>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>> Instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest
>>> using a
>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized
>>>> state.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nicely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK
>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use
>> the
>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state store transaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather
>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#rollback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back
>> or
>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider
>>> the
>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2
>> and
>>>> #3,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rolls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction
>>> from
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> changelog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3,
>> the
>>>>> state
>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3
>> and
>>>> #4,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed
>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander
>>>>> Sorokoumov
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following
>>> changes
>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> KIP:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level
>>>> config
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how
>> readCommitted
>>>> will
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not transactional,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of
>>> weeks
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> resume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the
>>> discussion
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as
>>> suggested
>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> Guozhang.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
>>>>>> secondary-store
>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation to address the
>> feedback
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make
>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pluggable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang
>> Wang <
>>>>>>>>>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very
>>> helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit
>> here, I
>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of
>>> "enforce
>>>> to
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> persist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one
>>> here
>>>> --
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and
>> cons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function
>>> to
>>>>>>> return a
>>>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)`
>> interface
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> StateStore
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated
>>> by
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new
>>>>> functions,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement
>> the
>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>>> function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration,
>>> not
>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
>>>>> persisted;
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
>> producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new
>>>> value
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> 200).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4,
>>> we
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do
>> the
>>>>>>>> restoration
>>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and
>> 200),
>>>> then
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the
>>>>> snapshot
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to
>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores
>>>> that
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can
>>>> still
>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for
>>>> stores
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be
>>> more
>>>>>>>> efficient.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated
>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>> differentiating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support,
>> and
>>>>> ALOS,
>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>>>> encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if
>> it
>>> is
>>>>>> big,
>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit
>> more
>>>>>>>> complicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander
>>>>> Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
>>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>> EOS,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
>>> persist
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that
>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives -
>>> in-memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store
>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>> EOS
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
>>> does,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially
>> flush
>>>> data
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are
>> correct,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams
>>> app
>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store
>>> implementation
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be
>> able
>>>> to
>>>>>> roll
>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery.
>>> RocksDB's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A
>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>> alternative,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted
>>>>> Changes,
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the second option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
>>>>>>> uncommitted
>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we
>>>> will
>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> handle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards
>>> going
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
>>>>>>>> transactionality
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang
>>> Wang
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the
>> underlying
>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>> store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned
>>> above
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> actually:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
>>>>>> persisted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
>>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>>> EOS,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
>>> persist
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that
>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
>>> the
>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
>>>> does,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially
>> flush
>>>> data
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that
>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store
>> level,
>>> we
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist
>>> any
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `flush`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface
>>> the
>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on
>>> top
>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStores,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all
>> the
>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around
>>> memory
>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we
>>> just
>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cached
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
>>>>>>> Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great
>>>> suggestions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> questions!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and
>> update
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for
>> everyone.
>>> I
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding
>> the
>>>>> option
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
>>>>> factories
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> Stores ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think
>>> that
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP
>> with
>>>>>>>> configuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing
>> the
>>>> same
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at
>>> all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't
>>>> find
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch
>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atomicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it
>>>> might
>>>>>>> leave
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure
>> on
>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store
>>> can
>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplication in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>> Thank
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
>>> mechanism
>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
>>> seems
>>>>>>> strange
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with
>>>>> complementary
>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IQv2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
>>>>> readCommitted
>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional
>>> stores
>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> write,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional
>> stores
>>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then
>>> at
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of
>> offset
>>>> 200,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
>>>> log-end-offset
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would
>> restart
>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm
>>> not
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure
>> that
>>>> the
>>>>>>> step 4
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place
>> in
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> task
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flushes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the
>>> transaction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the
>> underlying
>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>> store.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explicit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been
>>>>> flushed
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the
>>>> persistent
>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be
>>> triggered
>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
>>> the
>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would
>>>> certainly
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am
>> going
>>> to
>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> KIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions
>> and
>>>>>>>>> suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas
>>> Satish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams
>>> DSL
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> built-in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rocksDB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state
>> stores
>>>> by
>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps
>>>> using
>>>>>>> PAPI
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default
>>> behavior
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DSL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno
>>>>> Cadonna <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling
>> method
>>>>>>>>>> transactional()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on
>> the
>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>> builder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on
>> and
>>>> off
>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do
>>> not
>>>>> have
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory
>> and I
>>>>> guess
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do
>>> not
>>>>> fit
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such
>>> an
>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to
>>> be
>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is
>> a
>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is
>>>>> exceeded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a
>>> good
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad
>>> to
>>>>> see
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many
>>> devils
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a
>> POC,
>>>>> either
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than
>>>> blocking
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I
>>> personally
>>>> am
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS
>> with
>>>> the
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like
>> this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint
>> file
>>>>>>> indicating
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100.
>>> Now a
>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains
>>>> partially
>>>>>>>>> processed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the
>>> producer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all
>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>> records
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog
>>>>> position,
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>> 200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes
>>> are
>>>>>>>> persisted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
>> producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up
>>> to
>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>>> 200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between
>>>> those
>>>>>>> lines,
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line
>>> 5,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we
>> would
>>>>>> replay
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not
>>>> violate
>>>>>>> EOS,
>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4,
>>> then
>>>> at
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of
>>> offset
>>>>> 200,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
>>>>> log-end-offset
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would
>>> restart
>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate
>> EOS.I'm
>>>> not
>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure
>>> that
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> step 4
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when
>>>>> creating
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to
>> provide
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
>>>>>> returns a
>>>>>>>>>> token,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200,
>> and
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction
>> in
>>>> step
>>>>>> 5).
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
>>>>>>>> "rollback(token)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> token
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be
>>>> used
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> rollback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your
>> proposal
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and
>> 4)
>>>>>> above,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atomicity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have
>>> the
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>> image
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd
>> like
>>>> to
>>>>>>> learn
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to
>> make
>>>> the
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would
>>>> drive
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and
>>> come
>>>>> back
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM
>> Sagar
>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like
>> a
>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration
>>>> part
>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting/unsetting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the
>> KIP
>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it
>>> at
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Supplier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name
>> =>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value
>>>> assigned
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that
>>> rocksdb
>>>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statestore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the
>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it
>> might
>>>>> make
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the
>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>> consumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this
>>> is a
>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM
>> John
>>>>>> Roesler
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your
>>> proposal.
>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fills a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but
>> of
>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>>> Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ships
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug
>>> in
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types
>> of
>>>>> state
>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice
>> to
>>>>>>> configure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to
>>>> configure
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit
>>> off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just
>> adding
>>>> the
>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and
>> the
>>>>>>> factories
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
>>>>>> default,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here.
>>> However,
>>>> as
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users
>>> should
>>>> be
>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>>> of,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opt-in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You
>> could
>>>> add
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> Enum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
>>>>>>>>>> `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this
>>> approach:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
>>>>>>> transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend
>> their
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>> budget,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support
>>> to
>>>>>>>> in-memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the
>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are
>> multiple
>>>>> kinds
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage
>> and
>>>>>>> flushing
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me
>> that
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache,
>> which
>>>> is
>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to
>>> the
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you
>>>>> considered
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a
>> "full"
>>>>>>> WriteBatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the
>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered
>> in
>>>>>> memory,
>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the
>>> same
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional
>>>> store
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to
>> be
>>>>>> careful
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that
>>> repeated
>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifests in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form
>> of
>>>>> dirty
>>>>>>>> reads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of
>>>> dirty
>>>>>>> reads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During
>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the
>> changelog
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes
>>> gets
>>>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll
>>> the
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new
>> transactional
>>>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't
>> seem
>>>> to
>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship
>> of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly,
>> it
>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> strange
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1,
>> I'm
>>>>>> unsure
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the
>> current
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
>>>>>> readCommitted==false,
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the
>> Batch,
>>>>> then
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> store;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip
>>> the
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
>>>>>>> readCommitted
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP,
>>> and
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> apologies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns
>> in
>>>> one
>>>>>>>> "batch"
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45,
>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>> Sorokoumov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making
>> Kafka
>>>>>> Streams
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <
>>>> https://www.confluent.io
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <
>>> https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
>>>>>>>> [image:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for getting back to me. I actually have most of a working
implementation already. I'm going to write it up as a new KIP, so that it
can be reviewed independently of KIP-844.
Hopefully, working together we can have it ready sooner.
I'll keep you posted on my progress.
Regards,
Nick
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 11:25, Alexander Sorokoumov
<as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> Hey Nick,
>
> Thank you for the prototype testing and benchmarking, and sorry for the
> late reply!
>
> I agree that it is worth revisiting the WriteBatchWithIndex approach. I
> will implement a fork of the current prototype that uses that mechanism to
> ensure transactionality and let you know when it is ready for
> review/testing in this ML thread.
>
> As for time estimates, I might not have enough time to finish the prototype
> in December, so it will probably be ready for review in January.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:24 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Sorry to dredge this up again. I've had a chance to start doing some
> > testing with the WIP Pull Request, and it appears as though the secondary
> > store solution performs rather poorly.
> >
> > In our testing, we had a non-transactional state store that would restore
> > (from scratch), at a rate of nearly 1,000,000 records/second. When we
> > switched it to a transactional store, it restored at a rate of less than
> > 40,000 records/second.
> >
> > I suspect the key issues here are having to copy the data out of the
> > temporary store and into the main store on-commit, and to a lesser
> extent,
> > the extra memory copies during writes.
> >
> > I think it's worth re-visiting the WriteBatchWithIndex solution, as it's
> > clear from the RocksDB post[1] on the subject that it's the recommended
> way
> > to achieve transactionality.
> >
> > The only issue you identified with this solution was that uncommitted
> > writes are required to entirely fit in-memory, and RocksDB recommends
> they
> > don't exceed 3-4MiB. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I
> > think we'll find that this will be a non-issue for all but the most
> extreme
> > cases, and for those, I think I have a fairly simple solution.
> >
> > Firstly, when EOS is enabled, the default commit.interval.ms is set to
> > 100ms, which provides fairly short intervals that uncommitted writes need
> > to be buffered in-memory. If we assume a worst case of 1024 byte records
> > (and for most cases, they should be much smaller), then 4MiB would hold
> > ~4096 records, which with 100ms commit intervals is a throughput of
> > approximately 40,960 records/second. This seems quite reasonable.
> >
> > For use cases that wouldn't reasonably fit in-memory, my suggestion is
> that
> > we have a mechanism that tracks the number/size of uncommitted records in
> > stores, and prematurely commits the Task when this size exceeds a
> > configured threshold.
> >
> > Thanks for your time, and let me know what you think!
> > --
> > Nick
> >
> > 1: https://rocksdb.org/blog/2015/02/27/write-batch-with-index.html
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 19:31, Alexander Sorokoumov
> > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Nick,
> > >
> > > It is going to be option c. Existing state is considered to be
> committed
> > > and there will be an additional RocksDB for uncommitted writes.
> > >
> > > I am out of office until October 24. I will update KIP and make sure
> that
> > > we have an upgrade test for that after coming back from vacation.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it
> occurred
> > to
> > > > me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
> > > > existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional,
> > i.e.
> > > by
> > > > adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
> > > >
> > > > What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology,
> > > without
> > > > explicitly wiping the application state?
> > > > a) An error.
> > > > b) Local state is wiped.
> > > > c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new
> > RocksDB
> > > > database is created for uncommitted writes.
> > > > d) Something else?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit,
> > recover,
> > > > > transactional) with @Evolving.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in
> > the
> > > > > long
> > > > > > run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to
> > determine
> > > > if
> > > > > > checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for
> a
> > > > > > different reason, since as we add more state management
> > > functionalities
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and
> > > hence
> > > > > > keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in
> > an
> > > > > easier
> > > > > > path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional()
> > > because
> > > > > > > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break
> the
> > > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > we want in
> > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior
> > under
> > > > EOS
> > > > > > > that we want to support:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown
> > and
> > > > > > restore
> > > > > > > from that checkpoint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during
> recovery
> > > > after
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > crash failure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
> > > > > shutdown.
> > > > > > > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of
> > > deleting
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > local data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3.
> > > Essentially,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing
> in
> > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods
> > must
> > > > > allow
> > > > > > > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn
> > > > stores
> > > > > > > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > > recovery.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn
> > state
> > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we
> > > remove
> > > > > > > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation
> of
> > > > > > > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes.
> > Since
> > > > its
> > > > > > > default implementation must always return either true or false,
> > > > > signaling
> > > > > > > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > > > > > > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted
> > > > writes
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local
> > data
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > a graceful shutdown.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn
> > state
> > > > > stores
> > > > > > > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the replies!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that
> > > > interface,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> > > transactional
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract
> behind
> > > the
> > > > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we
> may
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in
> > which
> > > > > case
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now
> > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to
> distinguish
> > on
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its
> > > purposes?
> > > > If
> > > > > > > yes,
> > > > > > > > please let me know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > > > > > > StreamsConfig
> > > > > > > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
> > > > > Materialized,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your
> > > > suggestions:
> > > > > > > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
> > > > > RocksDB.
> > > > > > > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are
> transactional
> > > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > > > > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from
> > the
> > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > scope.
> > > > > > > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state
> store
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> > > > > > StoreSupplier
> > > > > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as
> > > > evolving.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface,
> we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> > > > transactional
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract
> > behind
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
> > > > > per-store
> > > > > > > > spec,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I
> > think
> > > > we
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are
> > discussing
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify
> transactional
> > > as
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()"
> or
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options
> the
> > > > > library
> > > > > > > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's
> not
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be
> > transactional,
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > > > > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > > > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean
> > > > failure.
> > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
> > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none"
> answer,
> > > and
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all
> > store
> > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go
> with
> > > > > > > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if
> users
> > > > would
> > > > > > > choose
> > > > > > > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional
> > (e.g.
> > > > if
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some
> store
> > > > > types,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > others).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care,
> or
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime,
> > except
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the
> > written
> > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But
> > this
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint
> > > files.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this
> > knob,
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be
> > > > sufficient
> > > > > > > (see
> > > > > > > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to
> > > specify
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I
> > think
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the
> > Materialized
> > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think
> we
> > > > could
> > > > > > > > > refactor
> > > > > > > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the
> > > > Stores
> > > > > > > > factory,
> > > > > > > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > > > > > > transactional)
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > > > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl
> > type
> > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that
> we
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely
> as
> > > an
> > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we
> may,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> > > > > > spill-to-disks
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in
> > the
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() /
> > StateStore#transactional():
> > > > the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer,
> > for
> > > > > > > > indicating
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as
> @evolving
> > so
> > > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to
> > both
> > > of
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal.
> > > > Earlier
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues
> > > with
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > tend
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user
> > experience
> > > to
> > > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a
> possible
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store
> > implementation
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > bottom
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference
> > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> > > recover()
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread
> but
> > > > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in
> the
> > > > > > Overview
> > > > > > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll
> > > > > forward, I
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the
> > > > 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state
> > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to
> react
> > > to
> > > > > > > crashes.
> > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and
> > effectively
> > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store
> > > transaction. I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details
> but
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
> > > > > backward.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the
> 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a
> possible
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward
> or
> > > roll
> > > > > > > back, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
> > > > > recover().
> > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where
> to
> > > > start
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> > > > recover()
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread
> but
> > > > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make
> > > things
> > > > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would
> > > also
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
> > > > > questions. I
> > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is
> > crucial
> > > > for
> > > > > us
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the
> > > prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> > > > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I
> > > > removed
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the
> last
> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> > > > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's
> > > look
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > steps 3
> > > > > > > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the
> > > > TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > > > > > > commits,
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2].
> The
> > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest
> > offsets
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > > > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager
> > methods
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit
> goes
> > > over
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the
> > > offset
> > > > > > > > obtained
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down
> > those
> > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in
> turn
> > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to
> > the
> > > > > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls
> > StateStore#recover
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned
> > by
> > > > > > > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
> > roll
> > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog
> offset
> > > > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and
> > > write
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2.
> > The
> > > > main
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the
> > > > > previously
> > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the
> > > temporary
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3.
> We
> > > do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written
> to
> > > the
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > store,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either
> > > wipe
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to
> > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from
> step
> > > 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4.
> We
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we
> > write
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the
> > operation
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5.
> > > Again,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous
> scenarios,
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and
> > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is
> > > > finished,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns
> > the
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay
> > > > because
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset.
> > As
> > > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > > state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural
> > transition
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit.
> > Same
> > > as
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as
> it
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset
> > outside
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store
> is.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface
> > only
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the
> > local
> > > > > state.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations.
> Thanks
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> > > > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The
> > only
> > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes
> that
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First
> > of
> > > > > all, I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it
> occured
> > to
> > > > me
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not
> > > > straightforward
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down
> with
> > a
> > > > > crash
> > > > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that
> > > > > corresponds
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed
> > > changelog
> > > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded,
> > > {@code
> > > > > > > false}
> > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
> > > > > prototype's
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > As
> > > > far
> > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If
> > you
> > > > do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you
> describe
> > > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> > > > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(),
> right?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
> > > roll
> > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
> > > store
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the
> > > > > flushing
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in
> general
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed
> > > state
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > restore
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic
> > > > partition.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint
> > file.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also
> state:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4,
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with
> the
> > > > > > > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was
> between
> > > #3
> > > > > and
> > > > > > #4
> > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a
> > valid
> > > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the
> > checkpoint
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into
> the
> > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset
> > outside
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store
> is.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback!
> I'll
> > > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism
> in
> > > > Stores
> > > > > > > > factory
> > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and
> > > might
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure
> why
> > > > their
> > > > > > > > creation
> > > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with
> `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander
> > > Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > > > function:
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
> > recover
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> > > passed-in
> > > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is
> different
> > > > than
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
> > we've
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint,
> in
> > > > which
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in
> offset.
> > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is
> that
> > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns
> an
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens
> > *during*
> > > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before
> the
> > > > > > > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed
> > > > offset,
> > > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in
> > the
> > > > > > > prototype
> > > > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit
> marker
> > > > that
> > > > > > > holds
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the
> store
> > > will
> > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as
> > the
> > > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the
> "transactional()"
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
> > EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for
> > > > `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional,
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not
> > > really
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > > > > > > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in
> > > point
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > > > > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this
> > land!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the
> type
> > > of
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis?
> > This
> > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or
> > RocksDB,
> > > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for
> smaller
> > > > > stores,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of
> > > > uncommitted
> > > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval
> > is
> > > > > 100ms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it
> and
> > > > > browsed
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > WIP
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > > > > function:
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
> > > recover
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> > > passed-in
> > > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is
> > different
> > > > than
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
> > > we've
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint,
> in
> > > > which
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in
> > offset.
> > > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is
> that
> > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the
> > "transactional()"
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
> > EOS.
> > > > But
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the
> > > local
> > > > > > > state's
> > > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated
> > > > offsets"
> > > > > > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the
> > > starting
> > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from
> > changelog
> > > > > till
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned
> > > offset
> > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until
> > the
> > > > > > > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also
> return
> > > an
> > > > > > > offset,
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we
> > just
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a
> > > > flush,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > > > > > > checkpointable
> > > > > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean
> shutting
> > > > down
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value
> from
> > > > > > "commit".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we
> > just
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe
> > out
> > > > the
> > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
> > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run,
> can
> > > this
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the
> > > > "transactional()"
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their
> > behaviors
> > > > are
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your
> > WIP
> > > > PR,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but
> just
> > > let
> > > > me
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander
> > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the
> > > > secondary-store
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the
> feedback
> > > > about
> > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and
> > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang,
> > please
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than
> > you
> > > > > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and
> IQv2.
> > > > > > > > Transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is
> > really
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> > > > > > unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and
> > testing
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the
> > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a
> > > > powerful
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a
> > > > different
> > > > > > path
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2
> state
> > > > > stores.
> > > > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest
> > using a
> > > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized
> > > state.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK
> > > > transaction
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use
> the
> > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather
> > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back
> or
> > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider
> > the
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2
> and
> > > #3,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3,
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3
> and
> > > #4,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander
> > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level
> > > config
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how
> readCommitted
> > > will
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of
> > weeks
> > > > and
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the
> > discussion
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as
> > suggested
> > > by
> > > > > > > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
> > > > > secondary-store
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the
> feedback
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make
> transactional
> > > > > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang
> Wang <
> > > > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very
> > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit
> here, I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of
> > "enforce
> > > to
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > persist
> > > > > > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one
> > here
> > > --
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and
> cons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function
> > to
> > > > > > return a
> > > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)`
> interface
> > > of
> > > > > > > > StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part
> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new
> > > > functions,
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement
> the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration,
> > not
> > > > > > feeling
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > > persisted;
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4.
> producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new
> > > value
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > 200).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4,
> > we
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do
> the
> > > > > > > restoration
> > > > > > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and
> 200),
> > > then
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the
> > > > snapshot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to
> > > > enforce
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores
> > > that
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can
> > > still
> > > > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for
> > > stores
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be
> > more
> > > > > > > efficient.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated
> > logic
> > > > > > > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support,
> and
> > > > ALOS,
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > > > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if
> it
> > is
> > > > > big,
> > > > > > 3)
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit
> more
> > > > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander
> > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > > > guarantees
> > > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
> > persist
> > > > any
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that
> correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives -
> > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store
> > > > guarantee
> > > > > > EOS
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
> > > > > committed
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
> > does,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially
> flush
> > > data
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are
> correct,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams
> > app
> > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store
> > implementation
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be
> able
> > > to
> > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery.
> > RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A
> > > considered
> > > > > > > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted
> > > > Changes,
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> > > > > > uncommitted
> > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we
> > > will
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards
> > going
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > > > > > > transactionality
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang
> > Wang
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the
> underlying
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned
> > above
> > > is
> > > > > > > > actually:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
> > persist
> > > > any
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that
> correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
> > the
> > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
> > > does,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially
> flush
> > > data
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that
> > > > naturally
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > question:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store
> level,
> > we
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist
> > any
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface
> > the
> > > > > right
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on
> > top
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all
> the
> > > > > writes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around
> > memory
> > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we
> > just
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> > > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great
> > > suggestions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and
> update
> > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for
> everyone.
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding
> the
> > > > option
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > > > factories
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think
> > that
> > > > this
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP
> with
> > > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at
> > all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't
> > > find
> > > > it
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch
> > > guarantees
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it
> > > might
> > > > > > leave
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure
> on
> > > > > write.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store
> > can
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
> > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> > mechanism
> > > > now.
> > > > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
> > seems
> > > > > > strange
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with
> > > > complementary
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > > readCommitted
> > > > > > on a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional
> > stores
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > write,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional
> stores
> > > > > > > regardless
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then
> > at
> > > > that
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of
> offset
> > > 200,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> > > log-end-offset
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would
> restart
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm
> > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > step 4
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the
> > transaction?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the
> underlying
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been
> > > > flushed
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the
> > > persistent
> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be
> > triggered
> > > > > > > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
> > the
> > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would
> > > certainly
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am
> going
> > to
> > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions
> and
> > > > > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas
> > Satish
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams
> > DSL
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state
> stores
> > > by
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps
> > > using
> > > > > > PAPI
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default
> > behavior
> > > > for
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno
> > > > Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling
> method
> > > > > > > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on
> the
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on
> and
> > > off
> > > > > (as
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do
> > not
> > > > have
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory
> and I
> > > > guess
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do
> > not
> > > > fit
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such
> > an
> > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to
> > be
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is
> a
> > > > memory
> > > > > > > limit
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is
> > > > exceeded.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a
> > good
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many
> > devils
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a
> POC,
> > > > either
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than
> > > blocking
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I
> > personally
> > > am
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like
> this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint
> file
> > > > > > indicating
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100.
> > Now a
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains
> > > partially
> > > > > > > > processed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the
> > producer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all
> > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog
> > > > position,
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes
> > are
> > > > > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.
> producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up
> > to
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between
> > > those
> > > > > > lines,
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line
> > 5,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we
> would
> > > > > replay
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not
> > > violate
> > > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4,
> > then
> > > at
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of
> > offset
> > > > 200,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> > > > log-end-offset
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would
> > restart
> > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate
> EOS.I'm
> > > not
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > step 4
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when
> > > > creating
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to
> provide
> > a
> > > > > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
> > > > > returns a
> > > > > > > > > token,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200,
> and
> > > > that
> > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction
> in
> > > step
> > > > > 5).
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > > > > > > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your
> proposal
> > is
> > > > > > > > different,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and
> 4)
> > > > > above,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have
> > the
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to
> make
> > > the
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would
> > > drive
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and
> > come
> > > > back
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM
> Sagar
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like
> a
> > > > great
> > > > > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration
> > > part
> > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the
> KIP
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > Supplier
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name
> =>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value
> > > assigned
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that
> > rocksdb
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the
> > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
> > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it
> might
> > > > make
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the
> > > memory
> > > > > > > > > consumption
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
> > > > > behaviour
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this
> > is a
> > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM
> John
> > > > > Roesler
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your
> > proposal.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but
> of
> > > > > course,
> > > > > > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug
> > in
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types
> of
> > > > state
> > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice
> to
> > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to
> > > configure
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit
> > off.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just
> adding
> > > the
> > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and
> the
> > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
> > > > > default,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here.
> > However,
> > > as
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > aware
> > > > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You
> could
> > > add
> > > > an
> > > > > > > Enum
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > > > > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this
> > approach:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> > > > > > transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend
> their
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support
> > to
> > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the
> > > mechanism
> > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are
> multiple
> > > > kinds
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage
> and
> > > > > > flushing
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me
> that
> > > > there
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache,
> which
> > > is
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to
> > the
> > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you
> > > > considered
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a
> "full"
> > > > > > WriteBatch
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the
> > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered
> in
> > > > > memory,
> > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the
> > same
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional
> > > store
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to
> be
> > > > > careful
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that
> > repeated
> > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form
> of
> > > > dirty
> > > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of
> > > dirty
> > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During
> > > regular
> > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the
> changelog
> > > in
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes
> > gets
> > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll
> > the
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new
> transactional
> > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't
> seem
> > > to
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship
> of
> > > this
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly,
> it
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > > strange
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1,
> I'm
> > > > > unsure
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the
> current
> > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
> > > > > readCommitted==false,
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the
> Batch,
> > > > then
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > store;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip
> > the
> > > > > cache
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > > > > readCommitted
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP,
> > and
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > > apologies
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns
> in
> > > one
> > > > > > > "batch"
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45,
> > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making
> Kafka
> > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <
> > > https://www.confluent.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <
> > https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> > > > > > >[image:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by Alexander Sorokoumov <as...@confluent.io.INVALID>.
Hey Nick,
Thank you for the prototype testing and benchmarking, and sorry for the
late reply!
I agree that it is worth revisiting the WriteBatchWithIndex approach. I
will implement a fork of the current prototype that uses that mechanism to
ensure transactionality and let you know when it is ready for
review/testing in this ML thread.
As for time estimates, I might not have enough time to finish the prototype
in December, so it will probably be ready for review in January.
Best,
Alex
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:24 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry to dredge this up again. I've had a chance to start doing some
> testing with the WIP Pull Request, and it appears as though the secondary
> store solution performs rather poorly.
>
> In our testing, we had a non-transactional state store that would restore
> (from scratch), at a rate of nearly 1,000,000 records/second. When we
> switched it to a transactional store, it restored at a rate of less than
> 40,000 records/second.
>
> I suspect the key issues here are having to copy the data out of the
> temporary store and into the main store on-commit, and to a lesser extent,
> the extra memory copies during writes.
>
> I think it's worth re-visiting the WriteBatchWithIndex solution, as it's
> clear from the RocksDB post[1] on the subject that it's the recommended way
> to achieve transactionality.
>
> The only issue you identified with this solution was that uncommitted
> writes are required to entirely fit in-memory, and RocksDB recommends they
> don't exceed 3-4MiB. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I
> think we'll find that this will be a non-issue for all but the most extreme
> cases, and for those, I think I have a fairly simple solution.
>
> Firstly, when EOS is enabled, the default commit.interval.ms is set to
> 100ms, which provides fairly short intervals that uncommitted writes need
> to be buffered in-memory. If we assume a worst case of 1024 byte records
> (and for most cases, they should be much smaller), then 4MiB would hold
> ~4096 records, which with 100ms commit intervals is a throughput of
> approximately 40,960 records/second. This seems quite reasonable.
>
> For use cases that wouldn't reasonably fit in-memory, my suggestion is that
> we have a mechanism that tracks the number/size of uncommitted records in
> stores, and prematurely commits the Task when this size exceeds a
> configured threshold.
>
> Thanks for your time, and let me know what you think!
> --
> Nick
>
> 1: https://rocksdb.org/blog/2015/02/27/write-batch-with-index.html
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 19:31, Alexander Sorokoumov
> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hey Nick,
> >
> > It is going to be option c. Existing state is considered to be committed
> > and there will be an additional RocksDB for uncommitted writes.
> >
> > I am out of office until October 24. I will update KIP and make sure that
> > we have an upgrade test for that after coming back from vacation.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it occurred
> to
> > > me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
> > > existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional,
> i.e.
> > by
> > > adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
> > >
> > > What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology,
> > without
> > > explicitly wiping the application state?
> > > a) An error.
> > > b) Local state is wiped.
> > > c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new
> RocksDB
> > > database is created for uncommitted writes.
> > > d) Something else?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit,
> recover,
> > > > transactional) with @Evolving.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in
> the
> > > > long
> > > > > run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to
> determine
> > > if
> > > > > checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for a
> > > > > different reason, since as we add more state management
> > functionalities
> > > > in
> > > > > the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and
> > hence
> > > > > keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in
> an
> > > > easier
> > > > > path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional()
> > because
> > > > > > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break the
> > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > we want in
> > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
> > > > for
> > > > > > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior
> under
> > > EOS
> > > > > > that we want to support:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown
> and
> > > > > restore
> > > > > > from that checkpoint.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during recovery
> > > after
> > > > a
> > > > > > crash failure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
> > > > shutdown.
> > > > > > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of
> > deleting
> > > > all
> > > > > > local data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3.
> > Essentially,
> > > we
> > > > > > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing in
> > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods
> must
> > > > allow
> > > > > > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn
> > > stores
> > > > > > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted
> data
> > > on
> > > > > > recovery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn
> state
> > > > > stores
> > > > > > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we
> > remove
> > > > > > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation of
> > > > > > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes.
> Since
> > > its
> > > > > > default implementation must always return either true or false,
> > > > signaling
> > > > > > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > > > > > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted
> > > writes
> > > > > and
> > > > > > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local
> data
> > > > even
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > a graceful shutdown.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn
> state
> > > > stores
> > > > > > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the replies!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that
> > > interface,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> > transactional
> > > > and
> > > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind
> > the
> > > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we may
> > > > always
> > > > > > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in
> which
> > > > case
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to distinguish
> on
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its
> > purposes?
> > > If
> > > > > > yes,
> > > > > > > please let me know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > > > > > StreamsConfig
> > > > > > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
> > > > Materialized,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your
> > > suggestions:
> > > > > > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
> > > > RocksDB.
> > > > > > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are transactional
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > > > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from
> the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > scope.
> > > > > > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state store
> > as
> > > > > > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> > > > > StoreSupplier
> > > > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as
> > > evolving.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> > > transactional
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract
> behind
> > > the
> > > > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
> > > > per-store
> > > > > > > spec,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I
> think
> > > we
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are
> discussing
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify transactional
> > as
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()" or
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options the
> > > > library
> > > > > > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's not
> > > very
> > > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be
> transactional,
> > > > while
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > > > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean
> > > failure.
> > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
> > > > mechanisms
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores
> should
> > be
> > > > > > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none" answer,
> > and
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all
> store
> > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if users
> > > would
> > > > > > choose
> > > > > > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional
> (e.g.
> > > if
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some store
> > > > types,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > others).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care, or
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime,
> except
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the
> written
> > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But
> this
> > > > check
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint
> > files.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this
> knob,
> > > > since
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be
> > > sufficient
> > > > > > (see
> > > > > > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to
> > specify
> > > > that
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I
> think
> > > for
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the
> Materialized
> > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think we
> > > could
> > > > > > > > refactor
> > > > > > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the
> > > Stores
> > > > > > > factory,
> > > > > > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > > > > > transactional)
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl
> type
> > > > level.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that we
> > > would
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely as
> > an
> > > > impl
> > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we may,
> > e.g.
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> > > > > spill-to-disks
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in
> the
> > > > > future
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() /
> StateStore#transactional():
> > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer,
> for
> > > > > > > indicating
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as @evolving
> so
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to
> both
> > of
> > > > you
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> > > > > transactional
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal.
> > > Earlier
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues
> > with
> > > > it.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > tend
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user
> experience
> > to
> > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references to
> > the
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store
> implementation
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > bottom
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference
> > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> > recover()
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in the
> > > > > Overview
> > > > > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll
> > > > forward, I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the
> > > 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state
> > store
> > > > > > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to react
> > to
> > > > > > crashes.
> > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and
> effectively
> > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store
> > transaction. I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details but
> > > > provide
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
> > > > backward.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward or
> > roll
> > > > > > back, I
> > > > > > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
> > > > recover().
> > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where to
> > > start
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> > > recover()
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make
> > things
> > > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would
> > also
> > > be
> > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
> > > > questions. I
> > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is
> crucial
> > > for
> > > > us
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the
> > prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> > > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I
> > > removed
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
> where
> > > the
> > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the last
> > > offset
> > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> > > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's
> > look
> > > at
> > > > > > > steps 3
> > > > > > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the
> > > TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > > > > > commits,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2]. The
> > > > offsets
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest
> offsets
> > > the
> > > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager
> methods
> > -
> > > > > > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit goes
> > over
> > > > all
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the
> > offset
> > > > > > > obtained
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down
> those
> > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in
> the
> > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in turn
> > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > > > > > At
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to
> the
> > > > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls
> StateStore#recover
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned
> by
> > > > > > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
> roll
> > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog offset
> > > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and
> > write
> > > > them
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2.
> The
> > > main
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the
> > > > previously
> > > > > > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the
> > temporary
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3. We
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written to
> > the
> > > > main
> > > > > > > > store,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either
> > wipe
> > > > the
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to
> > avoid
> > > > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from step
> > 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4. We
> > > can't
> > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we
> write
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the
> operation
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5.
> > Again,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous scenarios,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys from
> > the
> > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and
> > > checkpoint.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is
> > > finished,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns
> the
> > > > offset
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay
> > > because
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset.
> As
> > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a
> > > consistent
> > > > > > state.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural
> transition
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the
> > checkpoint
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the
> > checkpoint
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit.
> Same
> > as
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as it
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset
> outside
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
> state
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface
> only
> > > the
> > > > > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the
> local
> > > > state.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations. Thanks
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> > > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The
> only
> > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes that
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First
> of
> > > > all, I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
> > > > understanding
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it occured
> to
> > > me
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not
> > > straightforward
> > > > as
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down with
> a
> > > > crash
> > > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that
> > > > corresponds
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed
> > changelog
> > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded,
> > {@code
> > > > > > false}
> > > > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
> > > > prototype's
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> As
> > > far
> > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If
> you
> > > do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you describe
> > in
> > > > your
> > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> > > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail
> where
> > > the
> > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(), right?)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
> > roll
> > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
> > store
> > > > can
> > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the
> > > > flushing
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in general
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed
> > state
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > restore
> > > > > > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic
> > > partition.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint
> file.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also state:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > > > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was between
> > #3
> > > > and
> > > > > #4
> > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a
> valid
> > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the
> checkpoint
> > > > file
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into the
> > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset
> outside
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the
> state
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback! I'll
> > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism in
> > > Stores
> > > > > > > factory
> > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and
> > might
> > > > add
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure why
> > > their
> > > > > > > creation
> > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander
> > Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > > function:
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
> recover
> > > > this
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> > passed-in
> > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different
> > > than
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
> we've
> > > > done
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> > > which
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns an
> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens
> *during*
> > > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before the
> > > > > > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed
> > > offset,
> > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in
> the
> > > > > > prototype
> > > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit marker
> > > that
> > > > > > holds
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the store
> > will
> > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as
> the
> > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > > > function
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
> EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for
> > > `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional, we
> > > don't
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not
> > really
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if it
> > is
> > > > not,
> > > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > > > > > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in
> > point
> > > > 2.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > > > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this
> land!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the type
> > of
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis?
> This
> > > > way,
> > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or
> RocksDB,
> > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for smaller
> > > > stores,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of
> > > uncommitted
> > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval
> is
> > > > 100ms.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it and
> > > > browsed
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > WIP
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > > > function:
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
> > recover
> > > > this
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> > passed-in
> > > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is
> different
> > > than
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
> > we've
> > > > done
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> > > which
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in
> offset.
> > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the
> "transactional()"
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in
> EOS.
> > > But
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the
> > local
> > > > > > state's
> > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated
> > > offsets"
> > > > > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the
> > starting
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from
> changelog
> > > > till
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned
> > offset
> > > > > (which
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until
> the
> > > > > > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also return
> > an
> > > > > > offset,
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we
> just
> > > > have a
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a
> > > flush,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > > > > > checkpointable
> > > > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean shutting
> > > down
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value from
> > > > > "commit".
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we
> just
> > > > have a
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe
> out
> > > the
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
> > > > otherwise
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run, can
> > this
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the
> > > "transactional()"
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their
> behaviors
> > > are
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your
> WIP
> > > PR,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but just
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander
> > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the
> > > secondary-store
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> > > about
> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and
> > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang,
> please
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than
> you
> > > > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and IQv2.
> > > > > > > Transactional
> > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is
> really
> > an
> > > > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> > > > > unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and
> testing
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the
> > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a
> > > powerful
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a
> > > different
> > > > > path
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2 state
> > > > stores.
> > > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest
> using a
> > > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized
> > state.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK
> > > transaction
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use the
> > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather
> > than
> > > > > > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back or
> > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider
> the
> > > > write
> > > > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2 and
> > #3,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3, the
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3 and
> > #4,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander
> > > Sorokoumov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following
> changes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level
> > config
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how readCommitted
> > will
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of
> weeks
> > > and
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the
> discussion
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as
> suggested
> > by
> > > > > > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
> > > > secondary-store
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> > > about
> > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make transactional
> > > > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very
> helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit here, I
> > > think
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of
> "enforce
> > to
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > persist
> > > > > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one
> here
> > --
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and cons:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function
> to
> > > > > return a
> > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)` interface
> > of
> > > > > > > StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > token
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new
> > > functions,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement the
> > > > second
> > > > > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration,
> not
> > > > > feeling
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > persisted;
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new
> > value
> > > > is
> > > > > > > 200).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4,
> we
> > > > would
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do the
> > > > > > restoration
> > > > > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and 200),
> > then
> > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the
> > > snapshot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to
> > > enforce
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores
> > that
> > > > may
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can
> > still
> > > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for
> > stores
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be
> more
> > > > > > efficient.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated
> logic
> > > > > > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support, and
> > > ALOS,
> > > > 2)
> > > > > > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if it
> is
> > > > big,
> > > > > 3)
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit more
> > > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander
> > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > > guarantees
> > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
> persist
> > > any
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives -
> in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store
> > > guarantee
> > > > > EOS
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
> > > > committed
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
> does,
> > > but
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush
> > data
> > > > to
> > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are correct,
> > the
> > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams
> app
> > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store
> implementation
> > > can
> > > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be able
> > to
> > > > roll
> > > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery.
> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A
> > considered
> > > > > > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted
> > > Changes,
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> > > > > uncommitted
> > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we
> > will
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards
> going
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > > > > > transactionality
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang
> Wang
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> > > state
> > > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned
> above
> > is
> > > > > > > actually:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > > guarantees
> > > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not
> persist
> > > any
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
> the
> > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
> > does,
> > > > but
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush
> > data
> > > > to
> > > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that
> > > naturally
> > > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > question:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store level,
> we
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist
> any
> > > > data
> > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface
> the
> > > > right
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on
> top
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all the
> > > > writes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around
> memory
> > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we
> just
> > > > write
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great
> > suggestions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and update
> > the
> > > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for everyone.
> I
> > > will
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> > > option
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > > factories
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think
> that
> > > this
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP with
> > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing the
> > same
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at
> all?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't
> > find
> > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch
> > guarantees
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it
> > might
> > > > > leave
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure on
> > > > write.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store
> can
> > > > help
> > > > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
> > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> mechanism
> > > now.
> > > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > transactional
> > > > > > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
> seems
> > > > > strange
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with
> > > complementary
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > readCommitted
> > > > > on a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional
> stores
> > > > commit
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > write,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional stores
> > > > > > regardless
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then
> at
> > > that
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset
> > 200,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> > log-end-offset
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm
> not
> > > > sure
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that
> > the
> > > > > step 4
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place in
> > the
> > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the
> transaction?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> > > state
> > > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been
> > > flushed
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the
> > persistent
> > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be
> triggered
> > > > > > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in
> the
> > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would
> > certainly
> > > > be a
> > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am going
> to
> > > > > update
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions and
> > > > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas
> Satish
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams
> DSL
> > > with
> > > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state stores
> > by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps
> > using
> > > > > PAPI
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default
> behavior
> > > for
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno
> > > Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling method
> > > > > > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on the
> > > store
> > > > > > > builder
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on and
> > off
> > > > (as
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do
> not
> > > have
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory and I
> > > guess
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do
> not
> > > fit
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such
> an
> > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to
> be
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is a
> > > memory
> > > > > > limit
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is
> > > exceeded.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a
> good
> > > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad
> to
> > > see
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many
> devils
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a POC,
> > > either
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than
> > blocking
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I
> personally
> > am
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS with
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint file
> > > > > indicating
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100.
> Now a
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains
> > partially
> > > > > > > processed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the
> producer.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all
> > > changelog
> > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog
> > > position,
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes
> are
> > > > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up
> to
> > > > offset
> > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between
> > those
> > > > > lines,
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line
> 5,
> > > the
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we would
> > > > replay
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not
> > violate
> > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4,
> then
> > at
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of
> offset
> > > 200,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> > > log-end-offset
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would
> restart
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm
> > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > step 4
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when
> > > creating
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to provide
> a
> > > > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
> > > > returns a
> > > > > > > > token,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200, and
> > > that
> > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction in
> > step
> > > > 5).
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > > > > > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your proposal
> is
> > > > > > > different,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and 4)
> > > > above,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have
> the
> > > > store
> > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd like
> > to
> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to make
> > the
> > > > > point
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would
> > drive
> > > > the
> > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and
> come
> > > back
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM Sagar
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like a
> > > great
> > > > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration
> > part
> > > > > > though.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the KIP
> > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > Supplier
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name =>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value
> > assigned
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that
> rocksdb
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the
> > case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
> > > > pressure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it might
> > > make
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the
> > memory
> > > > > > > > consumption
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
> > > > behaviour
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this
> is a
> > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM John
> > > > Roesler
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your
> proposal.
> > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but of
> > > > course,
> > > > > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug
> in
> > > > their
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types of
> > > state
> > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice to
> > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to
> > configure
> > > > the
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit
> off.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding
> > the
> > > > > option
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > > > > factories
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
> > > > default,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here.
> However,
> > as
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users
> should
> > be
> > > > > aware
> > > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You could
> > add
> > > an
> > > > > > Enum
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > > > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this
> approach:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> > > > > transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend their
> > > > memory
> > > > > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support
> to
> > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the
> > mechanism
> > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are multiple
> > > kinds
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage and
> > > > > flushing
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me that
> > > there
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache, which
> > is
> > > > also
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to
> the
> > > > cache
> > > > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you
> > > considered
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a "full"
> > > > > WriteBatch
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the
> > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered in
> > > > memory,
> > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the
> same
> > > > thing
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional
> > store
> > > > can
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to be
> > > > careful
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that
> repeated
> > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form of
> > > dirty
> > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of
> > dirty
> > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During
> > regular
> > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the changelog
> > in
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes
> gets
> > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll
> the
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new transactional
> > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't seem
> > to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship of
> > this
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> > > mechanism
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
> > > seems
> > > > > > > strange
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1, I'm
> > > > unsure
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the current
> > > > behavior
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
> > > > readCommitted==false,
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the Batch,
> > > then
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > store;
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip
> the
> > > > cache
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > > > readCommitted
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP,
> and
> > > my
> > > > > > > > apologies
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns in
> > one
> > > > > > "batch"
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45,
> > Alexander
> > > > > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making Kafka
> > > > Streams
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <
> > https://www.confluent.io
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <
> https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> > > > > >[image:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>.
Hi everyone,
Sorry to dredge this up again. I've had a chance to start doing some
testing with the WIP Pull Request, and it appears as though the secondary
store solution performs rather poorly.
In our testing, we had a non-transactional state store that would restore
(from scratch), at a rate of nearly 1,000,000 records/second. When we
switched it to a transactional store, it restored at a rate of less than
40,000 records/second.
I suspect the key issues here are having to copy the data out of the
temporary store and into the main store on-commit, and to a lesser extent,
the extra memory copies during writes.
I think it's worth re-visiting the WriteBatchWithIndex solution, as it's
clear from the RocksDB post[1] on the subject that it's the recommended way
to achieve transactionality.
The only issue you identified with this solution was that uncommitted
writes are required to entirely fit in-memory, and RocksDB recommends they
don't exceed 3-4MiB. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I
think we'll find that this will be a non-issue for all but the most extreme
cases, and for those, I think I have a fairly simple solution.
Firstly, when EOS is enabled, the default commit.interval.ms is set to
100ms, which provides fairly short intervals that uncommitted writes need
to be buffered in-memory. If we assume a worst case of 1024 byte records
(and for most cases, they should be much smaller), then 4MiB would hold
~4096 records, which with 100ms commit intervals is a throughput of
approximately 40,960 records/second. This seems quite reasonable.
For use cases that wouldn't reasonably fit in-memory, my suggestion is that
we have a mechanism that tracks the number/size of uncommitted records in
stores, and prematurely commits the Task when this size exceeds a
configured threshold.
Thanks for your time, and let me know what you think!
--
Nick
1: https://rocksdb.org/blog/2015/02/27/write-batch-with-index.html
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 19:31, Alexander Sorokoumov
<as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> Hey Nick,
>
> It is going to be option c. Existing state is considered to be committed
> and there will be an additional RocksDB for uncommitted writes.
>
> I am out of office until October 24. I will update KIP and make sure that
> we have an upgrade test for that after coming back from vacation.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it occurred to
> > me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
> > existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional, i.e.
> by
> > adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
> >
> > What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology,
> without
> > explicitly wiping the application state?
> > a) An error.
> > b) Local state is wiped.
> > c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new RocksDB
> > database is created for uncommitted writes.
> > d) Something else?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
> > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Guozhang,
> > >
> > > Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit, recover,
> > > transactional) with @Evolving.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Alex,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in the
> > > long
> > > > run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to determine
> > if
> > > > checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
> > > >
> > > > As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for a
> > > > different reason, since as we add more state management
> functionalities
> > > in
> > > > the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and
> hence
> > > > keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in an
> > > easier
> > > > path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
> > > >
> > > > Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional()
> because
> > > > > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break the
> > > > guarantees
> > > > > we want in
> ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
> > > for
> > > > > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior under
> > EOS
> > > > > that we want to support:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown and
> > > > restore
> > > > > from that checkpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during recovery
> > after
> > > a
> > > > > crash failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
> > > shutdown.
> > > > > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of
> deleting
> > > all
> > > > > local data.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3.
> Essentially,
> > we
> > > > > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing in
> > > > > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods must
> > > allow
> > > > > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn
> > stores
> > > > > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted data
> > on
> > > > > recovery.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn state
> > > > stores
> > > > > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we
> remove
> > > > > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will
> have
> > to
> > > > > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation of
> > > > > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes. Since
> > its
> > > > > default implementation must always return either true or false,
> > > signaling
> > > > > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > > > > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted
> > writes
> > > > and
> > > > > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local data
> > > even
> > > > > after
> > > > > a graceful shutdown.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn state
> > > stores
> > > > > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the replies!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that
> > interface,
> > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> transactional
> > > and
> > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind
> the
> > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we may
> > > always
> > > > > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in which
> > > case
> > > > we
> > > > > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now in
> > > order
> > > > > for
> > > > > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to distinguish on
> > > > whether
> > > > > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its
> purposes?
> > If
> > > > > yes,
> > > > > > please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > > > > StreamsConfig
> > > > > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
> > > Materialized,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your
> > suggestions:
> > > > > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
> > > RocksDB.
> > > > > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are transactional
> > based
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > > scope.
> > > > > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state store
> as
> > > > > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> > > > transactional
> > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> > > > StoreSupplier
> > > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as
> > evolving.
> > > > As
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we
> > > should
> > > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> > transactional
> > > > and
> > > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind
> > the
> > > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
> > > per-store
> > > > > > spec,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I think
> > we
> > > > may
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are discussing
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify transactional
> as
> > > > either
> > > > > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()" or
> > > > > > > >
> > > "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options the
> > > library
> > > > > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's not
> > very
> > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be transactional,
> > > while
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean
> > failure.
> > > > > People
> > > > > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
> > > mechanisms
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores should
> be
> > > > > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none" answer,
> and
> > > our
> > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all store
> > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if users
> > would
> > > > > choose
> > > > > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional (e.g.
> > if
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some store
> > > types,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > others).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care, or
> need
> > > to
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime, except
> > for
> > > > > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the written
> > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But this
> > > check
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint
> files.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this knob,
> > > since
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be
> > sufficient
> > > > > (see
> > > > > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to
> specify
> > > that
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I think
> > for
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the Materialized
> > > > level.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think we
> > could
> > > > > > > refactor
> > > > > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the
> > Stores
> > > > > > factory,
> > > > > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > > > > transactional)
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl type
> > > level.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that we
> > would
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely as
> an
> > > impl
> > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we may,
> e.g.
> > > use
> > > > > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> > > > spill-to-disks
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in the
> > > > future
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() / StateStore#transactional():
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer, for
> > > > > > indicating
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as @evolving so
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to both
> of
> > > you
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> > > > transactional
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal.
> > Earlier
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues
> with
> > > it.
> > > > I
> > > > > > tend
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user experience
> to
> > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references to
> the
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store implementation
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > bottom
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference
> > > implementation.
> > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> recover()
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in the
> > > > Overview
> > > > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll
> > > forward, I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the
> > 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state
> store
> > > > > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to react
> to
> > > > > crashes.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and effectively
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store
> transaction. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details but
> > > provide
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
> > > backward.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward or
> roll
> > > > > back, I
> > > > > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
> > > recover().
> > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where to
> > start
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> > recover()
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make
> things
> > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would
> also
> > be
> > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
> > > questions. I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is crucial
> > for
> > > us
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the
> prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I
> > removed
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where
> > the
> > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the last
> > offset
> > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's
> look
> > at
> > > > > > steps 3
> > > > > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the
> > TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > > > > commits,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2]. The
> > > offsets
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest offsets
> > the
> > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager methods
> -
> > > > > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit goes
> over
> > > all
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the
> offset
> > > > > > obtained
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down those
> > > > offsets
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in the
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in turn
> > calls
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > > > > At
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to the
> > > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls StateStore#recover
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned by
> > > > > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog offset
> > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and
> write
> > > them
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2. The
> > main
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the
> > > previously
> > > > > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the
> temporary
> > > > store
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3. We
> do
> > > not
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written to
> the
> > > main
> > > > > > > store,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either
> wipe
> > > the
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to
> avoid
> > > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from step
> 3.
> > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4. We
> > can't
> > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we write
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the operation
> > is
> > > > > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5.
> Again,
> > > we
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous scenarios,
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys from
> the
> > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and
> > checkpoint.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is
> > finished,
> > > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns the
> > > offset
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay
> > because
> > > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset. As
> > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a
> > consistent
> > > > > state.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural transition
> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the
> checkpoint
> > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the
> checkpoint
> > > > file
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit. Same
> as
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as it
> is
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> > > store
> > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface only
> > the
> > > > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the local
> > > state.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations. Thanks to
> > the
> > > > > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> > > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The only
> > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes that
> are
> > > not
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First of
> > > all, I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
> > > understanding
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it occured to
> > me
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not
> > straightforward
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down with a
> > > crash
> > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that
> > > corresponds
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed
> changelog
> > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded,
> {@code
> > > > > false}
> > > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
> > > prototype's
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush(). As
> > far
> > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If you
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you describe
> in
> > > your
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> > > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where
> > the
> > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow
> that
> > > you
> > > > > were
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(), right?)
> > > > > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can
> roll
> > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
> store
> > > can
> > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the
> > > flushing
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in general
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed
> state
> > > and
> > > > > > > restore
> > > > > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic
> > partition.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint file.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also state:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was between
> #3
> > > and
> > > > #4
> > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a valid
> > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the checkpoint
> > > file
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into the
> > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> > > store
> > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback! I'll
> > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism in
> > Stores
> > > > > > factory
> > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and
> might
> > > add
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure why
> > their
> > > > > > creation
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander
> Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > function:
> > > > it
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover
> > > this
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> passed-in
> > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've
> > > done
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> > which
> > > > case
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> > right?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns an
> > > offset
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens *during*
> > > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before the
> > > > > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed
> > offset,
> > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in the
> > > > > prototype
> > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit marker
> > that
> > > > > holds
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the store
> will
> > > > > replay
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as the
> > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > > function
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for
> > `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization if
> > the
> > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional, we
> > don't
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not
> really
> > > > need
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if it
> is
> > > not,
> > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am
> going
> > to
> > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > > > > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in
> point
> > > 2.
> > > > If
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this land!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the type
> of
> > > > store
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis? This
> > > way,
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or RocksDB,
> > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for smaller
> > > stores,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of
> > uncommitted
> > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval is
> > > 100ms.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it and
> > > browsed
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > WIP
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > > function:
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is:
> recover
> > > this
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the
> passed-in
> > > > > offset.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after
> we've
> > > done
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> > which
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > > > function
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> > But
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the
> local
> > > > > state's
> > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated
> > offsets"
> > > > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the
> starting
> > > > offset
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from changelog
> > > till
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned
> offset
> > > > (which
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until the
> > > > > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also return
> an
> > > > > offset,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> > > have a
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a
> > flush,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > > > > checkpointable
> > > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean shutting
> > down
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value from
> > > > "commit".
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> > > have a
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe out
> > the
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
> > > otherwise
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run, can
> this
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the
> > "transactional()"
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their behaviors
> > are
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your WIP
> > PR,
> > > > so
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but just
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander
> Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the
> > secondary-store
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> > about
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and
> > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang, please
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than you
> > > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and IQv2.
> > > > > > Transactional
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is really
> an
> > > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> > > > unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and testing
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the
> proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a
> > powerful
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a
> > different
> > > > path
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2 state
> > > stores.
> > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest using a
> > > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized
> state.
> > > This
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK
> > transaction
> > > > and
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use the
> > > > changelog
> > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather
> than
> > > > > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back or
> > > forward
> > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider the
> > > write
> > > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2 and
> #3,
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction from
> > the
> > > > > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3, the
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3 and
> #4,
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with
> > the
> > > > > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander
> > Sorokoumov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level
> config
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how readCommitted
> will
> > > > work
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of weeks
> > and
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the discussion
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as suggested
> by
> > > > > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
> > > secondary-store
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> > about
> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make transactional
> > > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit here, I
> > think
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of "enforce
> to
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > persist
> > > > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one here
> --
> > > not
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and cons:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function to
> > > > return a
> > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)` interface
> of
> > > > > > StateStore
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated by
> > the
> > > > > token
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new
> > functions,
> > > > or
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement the
> > > second
> > > > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration, not
> > > > feeling
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > persisted;
> > > > get
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new
> value
> > > is
> > > > > > 200).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4, we
> > > would
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do the
> > > > > restoration
> > > > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and 200),
> then
> > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the
> > snapshot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to
> > enforce
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores
> that
> > > may
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can
> still
> > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for
> stores
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be more
> > > > > efficient.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated logic
> > > > > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support, and
> > ALOS,
> > > 2)
> > > > > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if it is
> > > big,
> > > > 3)
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit more
> > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander
> > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > guarantees
> > > > EOS,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist
> > any
> > > > data
> > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives - in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store
> > guarantee
> > > > EOS
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
> > > committed
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does,
> > but
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush
> data
> > > to
> > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are correct,
> the
> > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams app
> > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store implementation
> > can
> > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be able
> to
> > > roll
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery. RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A
> considered
> > > > > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted
> > Changes,
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> > > > uncommitted
> > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we
> will
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards going
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > > > > transactionality
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang Wang
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> > state
> > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned above
> is
> > > > > > actually:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> > guarantees
> > > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist
> > any
> > > > data
> > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > > > codebase
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code
> does,
> > > but
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush
> data
> > > to
> > > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that
> > naturally
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > question:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store level, we
> > > would
> > > > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist any
> > > data
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface the
> > > right
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on top
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all the
> > > writes
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around memory
> > > > > pressure
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we just
> > > write
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great
> suggestions
> > > and
> > > > > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and update
> the
> > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for everyone. I
> > will
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> > option
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > factories
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think that
> > this
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP with
> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing the
> same
> > > > thing
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't
> find
> > it
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch
> guarantees
> > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it
> might
> > > > leave
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure on
> > > write.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store can
> > > help
> > > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
> > > proposal.
> > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism
> > now.
> > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> transactional
> > > > > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> > > > strange
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with
> > complementary
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > readCommitted
> > > > on a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional stores
> > > commit
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > write,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional stores
> > > > > regardless
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at
> > that
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset
> 200,
> > > but
> > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> log-end-offset
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> > > sure
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that
> the
> > > > step 4
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place in
> the
> > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the transaction?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> > state
> > > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been
> > flushed
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the
> persistent
> > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be triggered
> > > > > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > > > codebase
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would
> certainly
> > > be a
> > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am going to
> > > > update
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions and
> > > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams DSL
> > with
> > > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state stores
> by
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps
> using
> > > > PAPI
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default behavior
> > for
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno
> > Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> > > > configuration
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling method
> > > > > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on the
> > store
> > > > > > builder
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on and
> off
> > > (as
> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do not
> > have
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory and I
> > guess
> > > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do not
> > fit
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such an
> > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to be
> > > > included
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is a
> > memory
> > > > > limit
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is
> > exceeded.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a good
> > > idea
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad to
> > see
> > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many devils
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a POC,
> > either
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than
> blocking
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I personally
> am
> > > > still
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS with
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint file
> > > > indicating
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100. Now a
> > > > commit
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains
> partially
> > > > > > processed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the producer.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all
> > changelog
> > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog
> > position,
> > > > say
> > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up to
> > > offset
> > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between
> those
> > > > lines,
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line 5,
> > the
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we would
> > > replay
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not
> violate
> > > > EOS,
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then
> at
> > > > that
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset
> > 200,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> > log-end-offset
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm
> not
> > > > sure
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that
> > the
> > > > > step 4
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when
> > creating
> > > > the
> > > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to provide a
> > > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
> > > returns a
> > > > > > > token,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200, and
> > that
> > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction in
> step
> > > 5).
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > > > > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be
> used
> > to
> > > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your proposal is
> > > > > > different,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and 4)
> > > above,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have the
> > > store
> > > > > > image
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd like
> to
> > > > learn
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to make
> the
> > > > point
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would
> drive
> > > the
> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and come
> > back
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM Sagar <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like a
> > great
> > > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration
> part
> > > > > though.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the KIP
> > seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it at
> > the
> > > > > > Supplier
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name =>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value
> assigned
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that rocksdb
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the
> case.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
> > > pressure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it might
> > make
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the
> memory
> > > > > > > consumption
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
> > > behaviour
> > > > on
> > > > > > IQ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this is a
> > > great
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM John
> > > Roesler
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your proposal.
> > This
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but of
> > > course,
> > > > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug in
> > > their
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types of
> > state
> > > > > stores
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice to
> > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to
> configure
> > > the
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit off.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding
> the
> > > > option
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > > > factories
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
> > > default,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here. However,
> as
> > > you
> > > > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users should
> be
> > > > aware
> > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You could
> add
> > an
> > > > > Enum
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this approach:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> > > > transactions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend their
> > > memory
> > > > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support to
> > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the
> mechanism
> > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are multiple
> > kinds
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage and
> > > > flushing
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me that
> > there
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache, which
> is
> > > also
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to the
> > > cache
> > > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you
> > considered
> > > > how
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a "full"
> > > > WriteBatch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the
> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered in
> > > memory,
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the same
> > > thing
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional
> store
> > > can
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to be
> > > careful
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that repeated
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form of
> > dirty
> > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of
> dirty
> > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During
> regular
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the changelog
> in
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes gets
> > > > > committed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll the
> > > store
> > > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new transactional
> > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't seem
> to
> > > fix
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship of
> this
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> > mechanism
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
> > seems
> > > > > > strange
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1, I'm
> > > unsure
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the current
> > > behavior
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
> > > readCommitted==false,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the Batch,
> > then
> > > > the
> > > > > > > store;
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip the
> > > cache
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > > readCommitted
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP, and
> > my
> > > > > > > apologies
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns in
> one
> > > > > "batch"
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45,
> Alexander
> > > > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making Kafka
> > > Streams
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <
> https://www.confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> > > > >[image:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by Alexander Sorokoumov <as...@confluent.io.INVALID>.
Hey Nick,
It is going to be option c. Existing state is considered to be committed
and there will be an additional RocksDB for uncommitted writes.
I am out of office until October 24. I will update KIP and make sure that
we have an upgrade test for that after coming back from vacation.
Best,
Alex
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:06 PM Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it occurred to
> me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
> existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional, i.e. by
> adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
>
> What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology, without
> explicitly wiping the application state?
> a) An error.
> b) Local state is wiped.
> c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new RocksDB
> database is created for uncommitted writes.
> d) Something else?
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hey Guozhang,
> >
> > Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit, recover,
> > transactional) with @Evolving.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Alex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in the
> > long
> > > run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to determine
> if
> > > checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
> > >
> > > As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for a
> > > different reason, since as we add more state management functionalities
> > in
> > > the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and hence
> > > keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in an
> > easier
> > > path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
> > >
> > > Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
> > >
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional() because
> > > > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break the
> > > guarantees
> > > > we want in ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
> > for
> > > > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior under
> EOS
> > > > that we want to support:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown and
> > > restore
> > > > from that checkpoint.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during recovery
> after
> > a
> > > > crash failure.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
> > shutdown.
> > > > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of deleting
> > all
> > > > local data.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3. Essentially,
> we
> > > > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing in
> > > > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods must
> > allow
> > > > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn
> stores
> > > > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted data
> on
> > > > recovery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn state
> > > stores
> > > > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we remove
> > > > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will have
> to
> > > > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation of
> > > > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes. Since
> its
> > > > default implementation must always return either true or false,
> > signaling
> > > > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > > > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted
> writes
> > > and
> > > > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local data
> > even
> > > > after
> > > > a graceful shutdown.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn state
> > stores
> > > > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the replies!
> > > > >
> > > > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that
> interface,
> > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between transactional
> > and
> > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind the
> > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we may
> > always
> > > > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in which
> > case
> > > we
> > > > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now in
> > order
> > > > for
> > > > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to distinguish on
> > > whether
> > > > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its purposes?
> If
> > > > yes,
> > > > > please let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > > > StreamsConfig
> > > > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
> > Materialized,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your
> suggestions:
> > > > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
> > RocksDB.
> > > > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are transactional
> based
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from the
> > > proposal
> > > > > > scope.
> > > > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state store as
> > > > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> > > transactional
> > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> > > StoreSupplier
> > > > > > interface.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as
> evolving.
> > > As
> > > > > long
> > > > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we
> > should
> > > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between
> transactional
> > > and
> > > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind
> the
> > > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
> > per-store
> > > > > spec,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I think
> we
> > > may
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are discussing
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify transactional as
> > > either
> > > > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()" or
> > > > > > >
> > "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options the
> > library
> > > > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's not
> very
> > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be transactional,
> > while
> > > > > others
> > > > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean
> failure.
> > > > People
> > > > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
> > mechanisms
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores should be
> > > > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none" answer, and
> > our
> > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all store
> > types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if users
> would
> > > > choose
> > > > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional (e.g.
> if
> > > > their
> > > > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some store
> > types,
> > > > but
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > others).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care, or need
> > to
> > > > know
> > > > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime, except
> for
> > > > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the written
> > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But this
> > check
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this knob,
> > since
> > > > for
> > > > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be
> sufficient
> > > > (see
> > > > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to specify
> > that
> > > > via
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I think
> for
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the Materialized
> > > level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think we
> could
> > > > > > refactor
> > > > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the
> Stores
> > > > > factory,
> > > > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > > > transactional)
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl type
> > level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that we
> would
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely as an
> > impl
> > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we may, e.g.
> > use
> > > > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> > > spill-to-disks
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in the
> > > future
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() / StateStore#transactional():
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer, for
> > > > > indicating
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as @evolving so
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to both of
> > you
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> > > transactional
> > > > or
> > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal.
> Earlier
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues with
> > it.
> > > I
> > > > > tend
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user experience to
> > > > control
> > > > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references to the
> > > > commit
> > > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store implementation to
> > the
> > > > > > bottom
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference
> > implementation.
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and recover()
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in the
> > > Overview
> > > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > cadonna@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll
> > forward, I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the
> 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state store
> > > > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to react to
> > > > crashes.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and effectively
> > > > rollback
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store transaction. I
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details but
> > provide
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
> > backward.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward or roll
> > > > back, I
> > > > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
> > recover().
> > > > > With
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where to
> start
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and
> recover()
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make things
> > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would also
> be
> > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
> > questions. I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is crucial
> for
> > us
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I
> removed
> > > > them
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where
> the
> > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the last
> offset
> > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> > > StateStore#recover
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's look
> at
> > > > > steps 3
> > > > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the
> TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > > > commits,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2]. The
> > offsets
> > > > here
> > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest offsets
> the
> > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager methods -
> > > > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit goes over
> > all
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the offset
> > > > > obtained
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down those
> > > offsets
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in the
> case
> > > of
> > > > > EOS.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in turn
> calls
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > > > At
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to the
> > > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls StateStore#recover
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned by
> > > > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > > > forward.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog offset
> > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and write
> > them
> > > > > down
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2. The
> main
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the
> > previously
> > > > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the temporary
> > > store
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3. We do
> > not
> > > > know
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written to the
> > main
> > > > > > store,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either wipe
> > the
> > > > main
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to avoid
> > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> > > consistent
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from step 3.
> > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4. We
> can't
> > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we write
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the operation
> is
> > > > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5. Again,
> > we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous scenarios, but
> > the
> > > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys from the
> > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and
> checkpoint.
> > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is
> finished,
> > > but
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns the
> > offset
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay
> because
> > > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset. As
> > > > changelog
> > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a
> consistent
> > > > state.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural transition
> to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the checkpoint
> > > file
> > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the checkpoint
> > > file
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit. Same as
> > > > without
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as it is
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> > store
> > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface only
> the
> > > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the local
> > state.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations. Thanks to
> the
> > > > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> > > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The only
> > > > limitation
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes that are
> > not
> > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First of
> > all, I
> > > > am
> > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
> > understanding
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it occured to
> me
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not
> straightforward
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down with a
> > crash
> > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that
> > corresponds
> > > to
> > > > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed changelog
> > > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded, {@code
> > > > false}
> > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
> > prototype's
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush(). As
> far
> > > as I
> > > > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If you
> do
> > > not
> > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you describe in
> > your
> > > > KIP
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> > > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where
> the
> > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow that
> > you
> > > > were
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(), right?)
> > > > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > > > forward.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state store
> > can
> > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the
> > flushing
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in general the
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed state
> > and
> > > > > > restore
> > > > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic
> partition.
> > > The
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint file.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also state:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the
> state
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was between #3
> > and
> > > #4
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a valid
> > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the checkpoint
> > file
> > > > does
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into the
> > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> > store
> > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback! I'll
> > > > definitely
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism in
> Stores
> > > > > factory
> > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and might
> > add
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure why
> their
> > > > > creation
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> function:
> > > it
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover
> > this
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > > > offset.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've
> > done
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> which
> > > case
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > Otherwise
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> right?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns an
> > offset
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens *during*
> > > commit.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before the
> > > > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed
> offset,
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in the
> > > > prototype
> > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit marker
> that
> > > > holds
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the store will
> > > > replay
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as the
> > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > function
> > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for
> `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization if
> the
> > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional, we
> don't
> > > > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not really
> > > need
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if it is
> > not,
> > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am going
> to
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > > > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in point
> > 2.
> > > If
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this land!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the type of
> > > store
> > > > > used
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis? This
> > way,
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or RocksDB,
> > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for smaller
> > stores,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of
> uncommitted
> > > > > records
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval is
> > 100ms.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it and
> > browsed
> > > > the
> > > > > > WIP
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> > function:
> > > > it
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover
> > this
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > > > offset.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've
> > done
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in
> which
> > > > case
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > > Otherwise
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> > right?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > > function
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> But
> > > the
> > > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the local
> > > > state's
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated
> offsets"
> > > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the starting
> > > offset
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from changelog
> > till
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned offset
> > > (which
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until the
> > > > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also return an
> > > > offset,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> > have a
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a
> flush,
> > > and
> > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > > > checkpointable
> > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean shutting
> down
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value from
> > > "commit".
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> > have a
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe out
> the
> > > > local
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
> > otherwise
> > > > if
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run, can this
> > > > > function
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the
> "transactional()"
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their behaviors
> are
> > > > still
> > > > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your WIP
> PR,
> > > so
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but just let
> me
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the
> secondary-store
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> about
> > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and
> StateStore#recover
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang, please
> see
> > > the
> > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than you
> > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and IQv2.
> > > > > Transactional
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is really an
> > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> > > unnecessarily
> > > > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and testing
> in
> > a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a
> powerful
> > > > idea
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a
> different
> > > path
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2 state
> > stores.
> > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest using a
> > > > changelog
> > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized state.
> > This
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK
> transaction
> > > and
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use the
> > > changelog
> > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather than
> > > > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back or
> > forward
> > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider the
> > write
> > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2 and #3,
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction from
> the
> > > > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3, the
> state
> > > > store
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4,
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with
> the
> > > > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander
> Sorokoumov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following changes to
> > the
> > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level config
> > with
> > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how readCommitted will
> > > work
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of weeks
> and
> > > > will
> > > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the discussion
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as suggested by
> > > > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
> > secondary-store
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback
> about
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make transactional
> > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very helpful.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit here, I
> think
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of "enforce to
> > > only
> > > > > > > persist
> > > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one here --
> > not
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and cons:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function to
> > > return a
> > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)` interface of
> > > > > StateStore
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated by
> the
> > > > token
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new
> functions,
> > > or
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement the
> > second
> > > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration, not
> > > feeling
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> persisted;
> > > get
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new value
> > is
> > > > > 200).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4, we
> > would
> > > > get
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do the
> > > > restoration
> > > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and 200), then
> > > call
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the
> snapshot
> > > of
> > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to
> enforce
> > > the
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores that
> > may
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can still
> > > > reduce
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for stores
> > > that
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be more
> > > > efficient.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated logic
> > > > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support, and
> ALOS,
> > 2)
> > > > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if it is
> > big,
> > > 3)
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit more
> > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander
> Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> guarantees
> > > EOS,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist
> any
> > > data
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives - in-memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store
> guarantee
> > > EOS
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
> > committed
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does,
> but
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data
> > to
> > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are correct, the
> > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams app
> > calls
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store implementation
> can
> > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be able to
> > roll
> > > > > back
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery. RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A considered
> > > > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted
> Changes,
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> > > uncommitted
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we will
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards going
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > > > transactionality
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> state
> > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned above is
> > > > > actually:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it
> guarantees
> > > > EOS,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist
> any
> > > data
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > > codebase
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does,
> > but
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data
> > to
> > > > > become
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that
> naturally
> > > out
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
> > previous
> > > > > > > question:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store level, we
> > would
> > > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist any
> > data
> > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface the
> > right
> > > > > level
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on top of
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all the
> > writes
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around memory
> > > > pressure
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we just
> > write
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great suggestions
> > and
> > > > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and update the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for everyone. I
> will
> > > > also
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> option
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> factories
> > > in
> > > > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think that
> this
> > > > idea
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP with
> > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing the same
> > > thing
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't find
> it
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch guarantees
> > > write
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it might
> > > leave
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure on
> > write.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store can
> > help
> > > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
> > proposal.
> > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism
> now.
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this transactional
> > > > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> > > strange
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with
> complementary
> > > API
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> readCommitted
> > > on a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional stores
> > commit
> > > > on
> > > > > > > write,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional stores
> > > > regardless
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at
> that
> > > > time
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset 200,
> > but
> > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to log-end-offset
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > processing
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> > sure
> > > > how
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that the
> > > step 4
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place in the
> > > > codebase
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the transaction?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying
> state
> > > > > store.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been
> flushed
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the persistent
> > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be triggered
> > > > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > > codebase
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would certainly
> > be a
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am going to
> > > update
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions and
> > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams DSL
> with
> > > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state stores by
> > > > default
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps using
> > > PAPI
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default behavior
> for
> > > > both
> > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno
> Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> > > configuration
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling method
> > > > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on the
> store
> > > > > builder
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on and off
> > (as
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do not
> have
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory and I
> guess
> > > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do not
> fit
> > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such an
> > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to be
> > > included
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is a
> memory
> > > > limit
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is
> exceeded.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a good
> > idea
> > > to
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad to
> see
> > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many devils
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a POC,
> either
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than blocking
> > any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I personally am
> > > still
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS with the
> > > state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint file
> > > indicating
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100. Now a
> > > commit
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains partially
> > > > > processed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the producer.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all
> changelog
> > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog
> position,
> > > say
> > > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up to
> > offset
> > > > 200
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between those
> > > lines,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line 5,
> the
> > > > local
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we would
> > replay
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not violate
> > > EOS,
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at
> > > that
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset
> 200,
> > > but
> > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to
> log-end-offset
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> > > sure
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that
> the
> > > > step 4
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when
> creating
> > > the
> > > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to provide a
> > > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
> > returns a
> > > > > > token,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200, and
> that
> > > > token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction in step
> > 5).
> > > > And
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > > > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be used
> to
> > > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your proposal is
> > > > > different,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and 4)
> > above,
> > > > but
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have the
> > store
> > > > > image
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd like to
> > > learn
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to make the
> > > point
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would drive
> > the
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and come
> back
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM Sagar <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like a
> great
> > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration part
> > > > though.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the KIP
> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it at
> the
> > > > > Supplier
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name =>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value assigned
> > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that rocksdb is
> > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the case.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
> > pressure
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it might
> make
> > > more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the memory
> > > > > > consumption
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
> > behaviour
> > > on
> > > > > IQ
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this is a
> > great
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM John
> > Roesler
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your proposal.
> This
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but of
> > course,
> > > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug in
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types of
> state
> > > > stores
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice to
> > > configure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to configure
> > the
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit off.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> > > option
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > > factories
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
> > default,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here. However, as
> > you
> > > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users should be
> > > aware
> > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You could add
> an
> > > > Enum
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this approach:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> > > transactions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend their
> > memory
> > > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support to
> > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the mechanism
> > > config
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are multiple
> kinds
> > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage and
> > > flushing
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me that
> there
> > > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache, which is
> > also
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to the
> > cache
> > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you
> considered
> > > how
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a "full"
> > > WriteBatch
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the proposed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered in
> > memory,
> > > > > until
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the same
> > thing
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store
> > can
> > > > help
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to be
> > careful
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that repeated
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form of
> dirty
> > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of dirty
> > > reads
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During regular
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the changelog in
> > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes gets
> > > > committed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll the
> > store
> > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new transactional
> > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't seem to
> > fix
> > > > it.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship of this
> > > > feature
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2
> mechanism
> > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> > transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it
> seems
> > > > > strange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1, I'm
> > unsure
> > > > what
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the current
> > behavior
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
> > readCommitted==false,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the Batch,
> then
> > > the
> > > > > > store;
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip the
> > cache
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > > readCommitted
> > > > > on
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP, and
> my
> > > > > > apologies
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns in one
> > > > "batch"
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45, Alexander
> > > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making Kafka
> > Streams
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <https://www.confluent.io
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> > > >[image:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-844: Transactional State Stores
Posted by Nick Telford <ni...@gmail.com>.
Hi everyone,
I realise this has already been voted on and accepted, but it occurred to
me today that the KIP doesn't define the migration/upgrade path for
existing non-transactional StateStores that *become* transactional, i.e. by
adding the transactional boolean to the StateStore constructor.
What would be the result, when such a change is made to a Topology, without
explicitly wiping the application state?
a) An error.
b) Local state is wiped.
c) Existing RocksDB database is used as committed writes and new RocksDB
database is created for uncommitted writes.
d) Something else?
Regards,
Nick
On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:16, Alexander Sorokoumov
<as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> Hey Guozhang,
>
> Sounds good. I annotated all added StateStore methods (commit, recover,
> transactional) with @Evolving.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Alex,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed replies, I think that makes sense, and in the
> long
> > run we would need some public indicators from StateStore to determine if
> > checkpoints can really be used to indicate clean snapshots.
> >
> > As for the @Evolving label, I think we can still keep it but for a
> > different reason, since as we add more state management functionalities
> in
> > the near future we may need to revisit the public APIs again and hence
> > keeping it as @Evolving would allow us to modify if necessary, in an
> easier
> > path than deprecate -> delete after several minor releases.
> >
> > Besides that, I have no further comments about the KIP.
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:51 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Guozhang,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that we will have to keep StateStore#transactional() because
> > > post-commit checkpointing of non-txn state stores will break the
> > guarantees
> > > we want in ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint
> for
> > > correct recovery. Let's consider checkpoint-recovery behavior under EOS
> > > that we want to support:
> > >
> > > 1. Non-txn state stores should checkpoint on graceful shutdown and
> > restore
> > > from that checkpoint.
> > >
> > > 2. Non-txn state stores should delete local data during recovery after
> a
> > > crash failure.
> > >
> > > 3. Txn state stores should checkpoint on commit and on graceful
> shutdown.
> > > These stores should roll back uncommitted changes instead of deleting
> all
> > > local data.
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 and #2 are already supported; this proposal adds #3. Essentially, we
> > > have two parties at play here - the post-commit checkpointing in
> > > StreamTask#postCommit and recovery in ProcessorStateManager#
> > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint. Together, these methods must
> allow
> > > all three workflows and prevent invalid behavior, e.g., non-txn stores
> > > should not checkpoint post-commit to avoid keeping uncommitted data on
> > > recovery.
> > >
> > >
> > > In the current state of the prototype, we checkpoint only txn state
> > stores
> > > post-commit under EOS using StateStore#transactional(). If we remove
> > > StateStore#transactional() and always checkpoint post-commit,
> > > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint will have to
> > > determine whether to delete local data. Non-txn implementation of
> > > StateStore#recover can't detect if it has uncommitted writes. Since its
> > > default implementation must always return either true or false,
> signaling
> > > whether it is restored into a valid committed-only state. If
> > > StateStore#recover always returns true, we preserve uncommitted writes
> > and
> > > violate correctness. Otherwise, ProcessorStateManager#
> > > initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint would always delete local data
> even
> > > after
> > > a graceful shutdown.
> > >
> > >
> > > With StateStore#transactional we avoid checkpointing non-txn state
> stores
> > > and prevent that problem during recovery.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:05 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Alex,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the replies!
> > > >
> > > > > As long as we allow custom user implementations of that interface,
> we
> > > > should
> > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between transactional
> and
> > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind the
> > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Regarding this question, I thought that in the long run, we may
> always
> > > > write checkpoints regardless of txn v.s. non-txn stores, in which
> case
> > we
> > > > would not need that `StateStore#transactional()`. But for now in
> order
> > > for
> > > > backward compatibility edge cases we still need to distinguish on
> > whether
> > > > or not to write checkpoints. Maybe I was mis-reading its purposes? If
> > > yes,
> > > > please let me know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:56 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for elaborating! I like your idea to introduce a
> > > StreamsConfig
> > > > > specifically for the default store APIs. You mentioned
> Materialized,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > think changes in StreamJoined follow the same logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I updated the KIP and the prototype according to your suggestions:
> > > > > * Add a new StoreType and a StreamsConfig for transactional
> RocksDB.
> > > > > * Decide whether Materialized/StreamJoined are transactional based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > configured StoreType.
> > > > > * Move RocksDBTransactionalMechanism to
> > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.internals to remove it from the
> > proposal
> > > > > scope.
> > > > > * Add a flag in new Stores methods to configure a state store as
> > > > > transactional. Transactional state stores use the default
> > transactional
> > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > * The changes above allowed to remove all changes to the
> > StoreSupplier
> > > > > interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure about marking StateStore#transactional() as evolving.
> > As
> > > > long
> > > > > as we allow custom user implementations of that interface, we
> should
> > > > > probably either keep that flag to distinguish between transactional
> > and
> > > > > non-transactional implementations or change the contract behind the
> > > > > interface. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:00 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding the global config v.s.
> per-store
> > > > spec,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > agree with John's early comments to some degrees, but I think we
> > may
> > > > well
> > > > > > distinguish a couple scenarios here. In sum we are discussing
> about
> > > the
> > > > > > following levels of per-store spec:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Materialized#transactional()
> > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional()
> > > > > > * StateStore#transactional()
> > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore()...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And my thoughts are the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * In the current proposal users could specify transactional as
> > either
> > > > > > "Materialized.as("storeName").withTransantionsEnabled()" or
> > > > > >
> "Materialized.as(Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(..))",
> > > > which
> > > > > > seems not necessary to me. In general, the more options the
> library
> > > > > > provides, the messier for users to learn the new APIs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * When using built-in stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > Materialized.as("storeName"). In such cases I feel it's not very
> > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > to specify "some of the built-in stores to be transactional,
> while
> > > > others
> > > > > > be non transactional": as long as one of your stores are
> > > > > non-transactional,
> > > > > > you'd still pay for large restoration cost upon unclean failure.
> > > People
> > > > > > may, indeed, want to specify if different transactional
> mechanisms
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > used across stores; but for whether or not the stores should be
> > > > > > transactional, I feel it's really an "all or none" answer, and
> our
> > > > > built-in
> > > > > > form (rocksDB) should support transactionality for all store
> types.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * When using customized stores, users would usually go with
> > > > > > Materialized.as(StoreSupplier). And it's possible if users would
> > > choose
> > > > > > some to be transactional while others non-transactional (e.g. if
> > > their
> > > > > > customized store only supports transactional for some store
> types,
> > > but
> > > > > not
> > > > > > others).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * At a per-store level, the library do not really care, or need
> to
> > > know
> > > > > > whether that store is transactional or not at runtime, except for
> > > > > > compatibility reasons today we want to make sure the written
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > > files do not include those non-transactional stores. But this
> check
> > > > would
> > > > > > eventually go away as one day we would always checkpoint files.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With all of that in mind, my gut feeling is that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Materialized#transactional(): we would not need this knob,
> since
> > > for
> > > > > > built-in stores I think just a global config should be sufficient
> > > (see
> > > > > > below), while for customized store users would need to specify
> that
> > > via
> > > > > the
> > > > > > StoreSupplier anyways and not through this API. Hence I think for
> > > > either
> > > > > > case we do not need to expose such a knob on the Materialized
> > level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Stores.persistentTransactionalKeyValueStore(): I think we could
> > > > > refactor
> > > > > > that function without introducing new constructors in the Stores
> > > > factory,
> > > > > > but just add new overloads to the existing func name e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > persistentKeyValueStore(final String name, final boolean
> > > transactional)
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plus we can augment the storeImplType as introduced in
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-591%3A+Add+Kafka+Streams+config+to+set+default+state+store
> > > > > > as a syntax sugar for users, e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > public enum StoreImplType {
> > > > > > ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > TXN_ROCKS_DB,
> > > > > > IN_MEMORY
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > stream.groupByKey().count(Materialized.withStoreType(StoreImplType.TXN_
> > > > > > ROCKS_DB));
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above provides this global config at the store impl type
> level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * RocksDBTransactionalMechanism: I agree with Bruno that we would
> > > > better
> > > > > > not expose this knob to users, but rather keep it purely as an
> impl
> > > > > detail
> > > > > > abstracted from the "TXN_ROCKS_DB" type. Over time we may, e.g.
> use
> > > > > > in-memory stores as the secondary stores with optional
> > spill-to-disks
> > > > > when
> > > > > > we hit the memory limit, but all of that optimizations in the
> > future
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be kept away from the users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * StoreSupplier#transactional() / StateStore#transactional(): the
> > > first
> > > > > > flag is only used to be passed into the StateStore layer, for
> > > > indicating
> > > > > if
> > > > > > we should write checkpoints; we could mark it as @evolving so
> that
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > one day remove it without a long deprecation period.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Guozhang, Bruno,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I am going to respond to both of
> you
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > single email. I hope it is okay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could, instead, have a global
> > > > > > > > config to specify if the built-in stores should be
> > transactional
> > > or
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This was the original approach I took in this proposal. Earlier
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > thread John, Sagar, and Bruno listed a number of issues with
> it.
> > I
> > > > tend
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > agree with them that it is probably better user experience to
> > > control
> > > > > > > transactionality via Materialized objects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could simplify our implementation for `commit`
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed! I updated the prototype and removed references to the
> > > commit
> > > > > > marker
> > > > > > > and rolling forward from the proposal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Bruno,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > implementation
> > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I moved the section about the 2-state-store implementation to
> the
> > > > > bottom
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the proposal and always mention it as a reference
> implementation.
> > > > > Please
> > > > > > > let me know if this is okay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and recover()
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > independently
> > > > > > > > from the state store implementation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I described how commit/recover change the workflow in the
> > Overview
> > > > > > section.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > cadonna@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank a lot for explaining!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now some aspects are clearer to me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While I understand now, how the state store can roll
> forward, I
> > > > have
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > feeling that rolling forward is specific to the 2-state-store
> > > > > > > > implementation with RocksDB of your PoC. Other state store
> > > > > > > > implementations might use a different strategy to react to
> > > crashes.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > > example, they might apply an atomic write and effectively
> > > rollback
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > they crash before committing the state store transaction. I
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP should not contain such implementation details but
> provide
> > an
> > > > > > > > interface to accommodate rolling forward and rolling
> backward.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I would remove the details about the 2-state-store
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > from the KIP or provide it as an example of a possible
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the end of the KIP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since a state store implementation can roll forward or roll
> > > back, I
> > > > > > > > think it is fine to return the changelog offset from
> recover().
> > > > With
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > returned changelog offset, Streams knows from where to start
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > restoration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please describe the usage of commit() and recover()
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > commit workflow in the KIP as we did in this thread but
> > > > independently
> > > > > > > > from the state store implementation? That would make things
> > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > Additionally, descriptions of failure scenarios would also be
> > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 04.08.22 16:39, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions and the clarifying
> questions. I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > they cover the core of this proposal, so it is crucial for
> us
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same page.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush().
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good call! I updated both the proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. I would shorten
> > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Turns out, these methods are no longer necessary. I removed
> > > them
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proposal and the prototype.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where the
> > > > offsets
> > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The offset passed into StateStore#commit is the last offset
> > > > > committed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the changelog topic. The offset passed into
> > StateStore#recover
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset for the given StateStore. Let's look at
> > > > steps 3
> > > > > > > and 4
> > > > > > > > > in the commit workflow. After the TaskExecutor/TaskManager
> > > > commits,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > StreamTask#postCommit[1] that in turn:
> > > > > > > > > a. updates the changelog offsets via
> > > > > > > > > ProcessorStateManager#updateChangelogOffsets[2]. The
> offsets
> > > here
> > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the RecordCollector[3], which tracks the latest offsets the
> > > > > producer
> > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > without exception[4, 5].
> > > > > > > > > b. flushes/commits the state store in
> > > > > > AbstractTask#maybeCheckpoint[6].
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > method essentially calls ProcessorStateManager methods -
> > > > > > > flush/commit[7]
> > > > > > > > > and checkpoint[8]. ProcessorStateManager#commit goes over
> all
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > that belong to that task and commits them with the offset
> > > > obtained
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > `a`. ProcessorStateManager#checkpoint writes down those
> > offsets
> > > > for
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > state stores, except for non-transactional ones in the case
> > of
> > > > EOS.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > During initialization, StreamTask calls
> > > > > > > > > StateManagerUtil#registerStateStores[8] that in turn calls
> > > > > > > > >
> > ProcessorStateManager#initializeStoreOffsetsFromCheckpoint[9].
> > > At
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > moment, this method assigns checkpointed offsets to the
> > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > stores[10]. The prototype also calls StateStore#recover
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > checkpointed offset and assigns the offset returned by
> > > > > recover()[11].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > > forward.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The 2-state-stores commit looks like this [12]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Flush the temporary state store.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Create a commit marker with a changelog offset
> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > state we are committing.
> > > > > > > > > 3. Go over all keys in the temporary store and write
> them
> > > > down
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > main one.
> > > > > > > > > 4. Wipe the temporary store.
> > > > > > > > > 5. Delete the commit marker.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's consider crash failure scenarios:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 1 and 2. The main
> > > state
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > in a consistent state that corresponds to the
> previously
> > > > > > > checkpointed
> > > > > > > > > offset. StateStore#recover throws away the temporary
> > store
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > proceeds
> > > > > > > > > from the last checkpointed offset.
> > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 2 and 3. We do
> not
> > > know
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > > from the temporary store were already written to the
> main
> > > > > store,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can't roll back. There are two options - either wipe
> the
> > > main
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > or roll
> > > > > > > > > forward. Since the point of this proposal is to avoid
> > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > > > throw away the state and we do not care to what
> > consistent
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > rolls to, we roll forward by continuing from step 3.
> > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 3 and 4. We can't
> > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > between this and the previous scenario, so we write all
> > the
> > > > > keys
> > > > > > > > from the
> > > > > > > > > temporary store. This is okay because the operation is
> > > > > > idempotent.
> > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between steps 4 and 5. Again,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > distinguish between this and previous scenarios, but
> the
> > > > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > store is
> > > > > > > > > already empty. Even though we write all keys from the
> > > > temporary
> > > > > > > > store, this
> > > > > > > > > operation is, in fact, no-op.
> > > > > > > > > - Crash failure happens between step 5 and checkpoint.
> > This
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > you referred to in question 5. The commit is finished,
> > but
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > reflected at the checkpoint. recover() returns the
> offset
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > commit here, which is incorrect, but it is okay because
> > we
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > replay the
> > > > > > > > > changelog from the previously committed offset. As
> > > changelog
> > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > idempotent, the state store recovers into a consistent
> > > state.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The last crash failure scenario is a natural transition to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > how should Streams know what to write into the checkpoint
> > file
> > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As mentioned above, the Streams app writes the checkpoint
> > file
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Kafka transaction and then the StateStore commit. Same as
> > > without
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proposal, it should write the committed offset, as it is
> the
> > > same
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > the Kafka changelog and the state store.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> store
> > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should include in the interface only the
> > > > > guarantees
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > are necessary to preserve EOS without wiping the local
> state.
> > > > This
> > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > allow more room for possible implementations. Thanks to the
> > > > > > idempotency
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the changelog replay, it is "good enough" if
> > StateStore#recover
> > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > offset that is less than what it actually is. The only
> > > limitation
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > that the state store should never commit writes that are
> not
> > > yet
> > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > in Kafka changelog.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think about this. First of
> all, I
> > > am
> > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > new to the codebase, so I might be wrong in my
> understanding
> > of
> > > > > > > > > how it works. Second, while writing this, it occured to me
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > StateStore#recover interface method is not straightforward
> as
> > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > Maybe we can change it like that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > > * Recover a transactional state store
> > > > > > > > > * <p>
> > > > > > > > > * If a transactional state store shut down with a
> crash
> > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > method ensures that the
> > > > > > > > > * state store is in a consistent state that
> corresponds
> > to
> > > > > > {@code
> > > > > > > > > changelofOffset} or later.
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > * @param changelogOffset the checkpointed changelog
> > > offset.
> > > > > > > > > * @return {@code true} if recovery succeeded, {@code
> > > false}
> > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > boolean recover(final Long changelogOffset) {
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Note: all links below except for [10] lead to the
> prototype's
> > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L468
> > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L580
> > > > > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L868
> > > > > > > > > 4.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L94-L96
> > > > > > > > > 5.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/RecordCollectorImpl.java#L213-L216
> > > > > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L94-L97
> > > > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L469
> > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L226
> > > > > > > > > 9.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StateManagerUtil.java#L103
> > > > > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0c4da23098f8b8ae9542acd7fbaa1e5c16384a39/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L251-L252
> > > > > > > > > 11.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/ProcessorStateManager.java#L250-L265
> > > > > > > > > 12.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/549e54be95a8e1bae1e97df2c21d48c042ff356e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/AbstractTransactionalStore.java#L84-L88
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:42 PM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > cadonna@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 1. Don't you want to deprecate StateStore#flush(). As far
> > as I
> > > > > > > > >> understand, commit() is the new flush(), right? If you do
> > not
> > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > >> it, you don't get rid of the error room you describe in
> your
> > > KIP
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> having a flush() and a commit().
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 2. I would shorten
> > Materialized#withTransactionalityEnabled()
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> Materialized#withTransactionsEnabled().
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 3. Could you also describe a bit more in detail where the
> > > > offsets
> > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > >> into commit() and recover() come from?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> For my next two points, I need the commit workflow that
> you
> > > were
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > >> to post into this thread:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > >> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >> 3. flush (<- that would be call to commit(), right?)
> > > > > > > > >> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 4. I do not quite understand how a state store can roll
> > > forward.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > > >> mention in the thread the following:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens during #3, the state store
> can
> > > > roll
> > > > > > > > >> forward and finish the flush/commit."
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> How does the state store know where it stopped the
> flushing
> > > when
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> crashed?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This seems an optimization to me. I think in general the
> > state
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > >> should rollback to the last successfully committed state
> and
> > > > > restore
> > > > > > > > >> from there until the end of the changelog topic partition.
> > The
> > > > > last
> > > > > > > > >> committed state is the offsets in the checkpoint file.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 5. In the same e-mail from point 4, you also state:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> "If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4, the state
> > > store
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > checkpoint."
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> How should Streams know that the failure was between #3
> and
> > #4
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > >> recovery? It just sees a valid state store and a valid
> > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > >> Streams does not know that the state of the checkpoint
> file
> > > does
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> match with the committed state of the state store.
> > > > > > > > >> Also, how should Streams know what to write into the
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > > >> after the crash?
> > > > > > > > >> This issue arises because we store the offset outside of
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > >> store. Maybe we need an additional method on the state
> store
> > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > >> that returns the offset at which the state store is.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > >> Bruno
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On 27.07.22 11:51, Alexander Sorokoumov wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> Hey Nick,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for the kind words and the feedback! I'll
> > > definitely
> > > > > add
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >>> option to configure the transactional mechanism in Stores
> > > > factory
> > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > >>> via an argument as John previously suggested and might
> add
> > > the
> > > > > > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > >>> option via RocksDB Indexed Batches if I figure why their
> > > > creation
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >>> rocksdb jni fails with `UnsatisfiedLinkException`.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Alexander Sorokoumov <
> > > > > > > > >>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()` function:
> > it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > >>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover
> this
> > > > state
> > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > > offset.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > >>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different than
> > the
> > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > >>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've
> done
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > >>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in which
> > case
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > >>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > Otherwise
> > > > it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that right?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, the only case when `recover` returns an
> offset
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >>>> the passed one is when the failure happens *during*
> > commit.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> If the failure happens after commit but before the
> > > checkpoint,
> > > > > > > > `recover`
> > > > > > > > >>>> might return either a passed or newer committed offset,
> > > > > depending
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> implementation. The `recover` implementation in the
> > > prototype
> > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>> passed offset because it deletes the commit marker that
> > > holds
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> offset
> > > > > > > > >>>> after the commit is done. In that case, the store will
> > > replay
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > >>>> commit from the changelog. I think it is fine as the
> > > changelog
> > > > > > > replay
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> idempotent.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > function
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> determine
> > > > > > > > >>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Right now, there are 2 other uses for `transactional()`:
> > > > > > > > >>>> 1. To determine what to do during initialization if the
> > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> gone
> > > > > > > > >>>> (see [1]). If the state store is transactional, we don't
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > wipe
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> existing data. Thinking about it now, we do not really
> > need
> > > > this
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > >>>> whether the store is `transactional` because if it is
> not,
> > > > we'd
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >>>> written the checkpoint in the first place. I am going to
> > > > remove
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> check.
> > > > > > > > >>>> 2. To determine if the persistent kv store in
> > > KStreamImplJoin
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional (see [2], [3]).
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I am not sure if we can get rid of the checks in point
> 2.
> > If
> > > > so,
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> happy to encapsulate `transactional()` logic in
> > > > > `commit/recover`.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> 1.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-971d9ef7ea8aefffff687fc7ee131bd166ced94445f4ab55aa83007541dccfdaL256-R281
> > > > > > > > >>>> 2.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R266-R278
> > > > > > > > >>>> 3.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393/files#diff-9ce43046fdef1233ab762e728abd1d3d44d7c270b28dcf6b63aa31a93a30af07R348-R354
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:39 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > > > > nick.telford@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Excellent proposal, I'm very keen to see this land!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Would it be useful to permit configuring the type of
> > store
> > > > used
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>>> uncommitted offsets on a store-by-store basis? This
> way,
> > > > users
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > >>>>> whether to use, e.g. an in-memory store or RocksDB,
> > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > >> reducing
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the overheads associated with RocksDb for smaller
> stores,
> > > but
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> memory pressure issues?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I suspect that in most cases, the number of uncommitted
> > > > records
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> very small, because the default commit interval is
> 100ms.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 01:36, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, I looked over it and
> browsed
> > > the
> > > > > WIP
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> have a couple meta thoughts:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) About the param passed into the `recover()`
> function:
> > > it
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> me
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> that the semantics of "recover(offset)" is: recover
> this
> > > > state
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> transaction boundary which is at least the passed-in
> > > offset.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> possibility that the returned offset is different than
> > the
> > > > > > > passed-in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that if the previous failure happens after we've
> done
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> procedures except writing the new checkpoint, in which
> > > case
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> offset would be larger than the passed-in offset.
> > > Otherwise
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> always be equal to the passed-in offset, is that
> right?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) It seems the only use for the "transactional()"
> > > function
> > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> determine
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> if we can update the checkpoint file while in EOS. But
> > the
> > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint file's offsets is just to tell "the local
> > > state's
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot's progress is at least the indicated offsets"
> > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> this KIP maybe we would just do:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> a) when in ALOS, upon failover: we set the starting
> > offset
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpointed-offset, then restore() from changelog
> till
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> end-offset.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> This way we may restore some records twice.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> b) when in EOS, upon failover: we first call
> > > > > > > > >>>>> recover(checkpointed-offset),
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> then set the starting offset as the returned offset
> > (which
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> larger
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> than checkpointed-offset), then restore until the
> > > > end-offset.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> So why not also:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> c) we let the `commit()` function to also return an
> > > offset,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >>>>> indicates
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> "checkpointable offsets".
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> d) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> have a
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "commit()" which is simply a flush,
> > and
> > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> sentinel value like -1. Then later if we get
> > > checkpointable
> > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > >> -1,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> do not write the checkpoint. Upon clean shutting down
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> checkpoint regardless of the returned value from
> > "commit".
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> e) for existing non-transactional stores, we just
> have a
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> implementation of "recover()" which is to wipe out the
> > > local
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> return offset 0 if the passed in offset is -1,
> otherwise
> > > if
> > > > > not
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> indicates a clean shutdown in the last run, can this
> > > > function
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> no-op.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> In that case, we would not need the "transactional()"
> > > > function
> > > > > > > > >> anymore,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> since for non-transactional stores their behaviors are
> > > still
> > > > > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> `commit / recover` function pairs.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I have not completed the thorough pass on your WIP PR,
> > so
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> come up with some more feedback later, but just let me
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> understanding above is correct or not?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 7:01 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I updated the KIP with the following changes:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Replaced in-memory batches with the secondary-store
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback about
> > > memory
> > > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Introduced StateStore#commit and StateStore#recover
> > > > methods
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> extension of the rollback idea. @Guozhang, please see
> > the
> > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > >>>>> below
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> why I took a slightly different approach than you
> > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Removed mentions of changes to IQv1 and IQv2.
> > > > Transactional
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> enable reading committed in IQ, but it is really an
> > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > >>>>> feature
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that deserves its own KIP. Conflating them
> > unnecessarily
> > > > > > > increases
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> scope for discussion, implementation, and testing in
> a
> > > > single
> > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I also published a prototype -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12393
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that implements changes described in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regarding explicit rollback, I think it is a powerful
> > > idea
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> allows
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> other StateStore implementations to take a different
> > path
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional behavior rather than keep 2 state
> stores.
> > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing a new commit token, I suggest using a
> > > changelog
> > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> already 1:1 corresponds to the materialized state.
> This
> > > > works
> > > > > > > > nicely
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because Kafka Stream first commits an AK transaction
> > and
> > > > only
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoints the state store, so we can use the
> > changelog
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the state store transaction.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I called the method StateStore#recover rather than
> > > > > > > > >> StateStore#rollback
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> because a state store might either roll back or
> forward
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> specific point of the crash failure.Consider the
> write
> > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Streams is:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. write stuff to the state store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. flush
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 4. checkpoint
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Let's consider 3 cases:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 1. If the crash failure happens between #2 and #3,
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > >>>>> rolls
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> back and replays the uncommitted transaction from the
> > > > > > changelog.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2. If the crash failure happens during #3, the state
> > > store
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and finish the flush/commit.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 3. If the crash failure happens between #3 and #4,
> the
> > > > state
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > >>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do nothing during recovery and just proceed with the
> > > > > > checkpoint.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexander
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:16 AM Alexander Sorokoumov
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asorokoumov@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As a status update, I did the following changes to
> the
> > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * replaced configuration via the top-level config
> with
> > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Stores factory and StoreSuppliers,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * added IQv2 and elaborated how readCommitted will
> > work
> > > > when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not transactional,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * removed claims about ALOS.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am going to be OOO in the next couple of weeks and
> > > will
> > > > > > resume
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> working
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on the proposal and responding to the discussion in
> > this
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> starting
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> June 27. My next top priorities are:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Prototype the rollback approach as suggested by
> > > > Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Replace in-memory batches with the
> secondary-store
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> default implementation to address the feedback about
> > > > memory
> > > > > > > > >>>>> pressure as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> suggested by Sagar and Bruno.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Adjust Stores methods to make transactional
> > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> pluggable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Publish the POC for the first review.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your replies! That is very helpful.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just to broaden our discussions a bit here, I think
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> approaches in parallel to the idea of "enforce to
> > only
> > > > > > persist
> > > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> explicit flush" and I'd like to throw one here --
> not
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> advocating
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but just for us to compare the pros and cons:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1) We let the StateStore's `flush` function to
> > return a
> > > > > token
> > > > > > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> returning `void`.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2) We add another `rollback(token)` interface of
> > > > StateStore
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> effectively rollback the state as indicated by the
> > > token
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> snapshot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> when the corresponding `flush` is called.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3) We encode the token and commit as part of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `producer#sendOffsetsToTransaction`.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Users could optionally implement the new functions,
> > or
> > > > they
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> return the token at all and not implement the
> second
> > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Again,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> APIs are just for the sake of illustration, not
> > feeling
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> natural :)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then the procedure would be:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. the previous checkpointed offset is 100
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are persisted;
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> returned
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that indicates the snapshot of 200.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(token);
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file (say, the new value
> is
> > > > 200).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then if there's a failure, say between 3/4, we
> would
> > > get
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > token
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> last committed txn, and first we would do the
> > > restoration
> > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the state to somewhere between 100 and 200), then
> > call
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> `store.rollback(token)` to rollback to the snapshot
> > of
> > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > 100.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The pros is that we would then not need to enforce
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > >>>>> stores to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persist any data during the txn: for stores that
> may
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement the `rollback` function, they can still
> > > reduce
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> persisting any data" via this API, but for stores
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rollback, their implementation may be more
> > > efficient.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > cons
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> though,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on top of my head are 1) more complicated logic
> > > > > > differentiating
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> between
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with and without store rollback support, and ALOS,
> 2)
> > > > > > encoding
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> part of the commit offset is not ideal if it is
> big,
> > 3)
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> logic
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> including the state store is also a bit more
> > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:29 PM Alexander Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it guarantees
> > EOS,
> > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist any
> > data
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is correct. Both alternatives - in-memory
> > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> transactionality via the secondary store guarantee
> > EOS
> > > > by
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> persisting
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> data in the "main" state store until it is
> committed
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> topic.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does, but
> > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data
> to
> > > > become
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for elaborating! You are correct, the
> > > > underlying
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> should not persist data until the streams app
> calls
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> StateStore#flush.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> There
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are 2 options how a State Store implementation can
> > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > >>>>> that -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> either
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> keep uncommitted writes in memory or be able to
> roll
> > > > back
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> were not committed during recovery. RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > >>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> implementation of the first option. A considered
> > > > > > alternative,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> via Secondary State Store for Uncommitted Changes,
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the second option.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As everyone correctly pointed out, keeping
> > uncommitted
> > > > > data
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> introduces a very real risk of OOM that we will
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > handle.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> more I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think about it, the more I lean towards going with
> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Transactions
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Secondary Store as the way to implement
> > > transactionality
> > > > > as
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have that issue.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > >>>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying state
> > > > store.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right. The ordering I mentioned above is
> > > > actually:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. flush store, make sure all writes are
> persisted.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm still trying to clarify how it guarantees
> > > EOS,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> would achieve it by enforcing to not persist any
> > data
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> within
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction until step 4. Is that correct?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > codebase
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async flush before the commit?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh what I meant is not what KStream code does,
> but
> > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStore
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> impl
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> classes themselves could potentially flush data
> to
> > > > become
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> persisted
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> asynchronously, e.g. RocksDB does that naturally
> > out
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> control
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KStream code. I think it is related to my
> previous
> > > > > > question:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> guaranteeing EOS at the state store level, we
> would
> > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ask
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> impl classes that "you should not persist any
> data
> > > > until
> > > > > > > > >>>>> `flush`
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly", is the StateStore interface the
> right
> > > > level
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> enforce
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms, or should we just do that on top of
> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> StateStores,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> during the transaction we just keep all the
> writes
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> (of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> course
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we need to consider how to work around memory
> > > pressure
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> previously
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned), and then upon committing, we just
> write
> > > the
> > > > > > > cached
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> records
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whole into the store and then call flush.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Alexander
> > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <as...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the wealth of great suggestions
> and
> > > > > > questions!
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> going
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> address the feedback in batches and update the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > >>>>> async,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> it is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably going to be easier for everyone. I will
> > > also
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> message after making updates to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @John,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the option
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the factories
> > in
> > > > > > Stores ?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for suggesting that. I think that this
> > > idea
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>>> better
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> came up with and will update the KIP with
> > > configuring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> via
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the suppliers and Stores.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what is the advantage over just doing the same
> > thing
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point me to RecordCache? I can't find it
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> project.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage would be that WriteBatch guarantees
> > write
> > > > > > > > >>>>> atomicity.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> As
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> far
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understood the way RecordCache works, it might
> > leave
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> system
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent state during crash failure on
> write.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store can
> help
> > > > reduce
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> duplication in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case of ALOS
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will remove claims about ALOS from the
> proposal.
> > > > Thank
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism now.
> > > > Should
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this transactional
> > > > > mechanism,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> > strange
> > > > only
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the proposal with complementary
> > API
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IQv2
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to readCommitted
> > on a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can assume that non-transactional stores
> commit
> > > on
> > > > > > write,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> IQ
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the same way with non-transactional stores
> > > regardless
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> value
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at that
> > > time
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> local
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset 200,
> but
> > > > upon
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to log-end-offset
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > processing
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> sure
> > > how
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that the
> > step 4
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please point me to the place in the
> > > codebase
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> task
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flushes
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the store before committing the transaction?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at TaskExecutor (
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/TaskExecutor.java#L144-L167
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask#prepareCommit (
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/StreamTask.java#L398
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and CachedStateStore (
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/internals/CachedStateStore.java#L29-L34
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we flush the cache, but not the underlying state
> > > > store.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Explicit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> StateStore#flush happens in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> AbstractTask#maybeWriteCheckpoint (
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/AbstractTask.java#L91-L99
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something I am missing here?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Today all cached data that have not been flushed
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure, but even flushed data to the persistent
> > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > >>>>> store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted since flushing can be triggered
> > > > > > asynchronously
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commit.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please point me to the place in the
> > codebase
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> async
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> flush before the commit? This would certainly
> be a
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated StateStore#commit method.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the feedback. I am going to
> > update
> > > > the
> > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the next batch of questions and
> > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <ssatish@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP proposal Alex.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration default
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mention applications using streams DSL with
> > > > > built-in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> rocksDB
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> store will get transactional state stores by
> > > default
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >>>>> EOS
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> enabled,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the default implementation for apps using
> > PAPI
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> fallback
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional behavior.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we have the same default behavior for
> > > both
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> apps -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and PAPI?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:11 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cadonna@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PR, Alex!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also glad to see this coming.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer to restrict the
> > configuration
> > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the state sore. Ideally, calling method
> > > > > transactional()
> > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would be enough. An option on the store
> > > > builder
> > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> make it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to turn transactionality on and off
> (as
> > > > John
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> proposed).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Memory usage in RocksDB
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be a major issue. We do not have
> > any
> > > > > > > > >>>>> guarantee
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes fit into memory and I guess
> > we
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>>> never
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> have.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when the uncommitted writes do not fit
> > > into
> > > > > > > > >>>>> memory?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Does
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw an exception? Can we handle such an
> > > exception
> > > > > > > > >>>>> without
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> crashing?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the RocksDB behavior even need to be
> > included
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end it is an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should consider - though - is a memory
> > > limit
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> form.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do when the memory limit is exceeded.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. PoC
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Guozhang that a PoC is a good
> idea
> > to
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devils in the details.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.05.22 01:52, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Alex,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing the proposal! Glad to see
> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>> coming. I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a KIP that since too many devils
> would
> > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> buried
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better to start working on a POC, either
> > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> parallel,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume our discussion, rather than blocking
> any
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> until
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfied with the proposal.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a concrete example, I personally am
> > still
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 100%
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> clear
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal would work to achieve EOS with the
> > state
> > > > > > > > >>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit procedure today looks like this:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0: there's an existing checkpoint file
> > indicating
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> offset
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local state store image is 100. Now a
> > commit
> > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> triggered:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. flush cache (since it contains partially
> > > > processed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> records),
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all records are written to the producer.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. flush producer, making sure all changelog
> > > > records
> > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> now
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> acked.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here we would get the new changelog position,
> > say
> > > > 200
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. flush store, make sure all writes are
> > > persisted.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. producer.sendOffsetsToTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> producer.commitTransaction();
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make the writes in changelog up to
> offset
> > > 200
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Update the checkpoint file to 200.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question about atomicity between those
> > lines,
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> example:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 4 and line 5, the
> > > local
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> file
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as 100, and upon recovery we would
> replay
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 200. This is not ideal but does not violate
> > EOS,
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelogs
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all overwrites anyways.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * If we crash between line 3 and 4, then at
> > that
> > > > time
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistent
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store image is representing as of offset 200,
> > but
> > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog records from 100 to log-end-offset
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not be replayed and we would restart
> > > processing
> > > > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> position
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 100.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Restart processing will violate EOS.I'm not
> > sure
> > > > how
> > > > > > > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RocksDB's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchWithIndex would make sure that the
> > > step 4
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step 5
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done atomically here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Originally what I was thinking when creating
> > the
> > > > JIRA
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ticket
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to let the state store to provide a
> > > > > transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "token
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit()" used in step 4) above which
> returns a
> > > > > token,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example above indicates offset 200, and that
> > > token
> > > > > > > > >>>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> written
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the records in Kafka transaction in step
> 5).
> > > And
> > > > > > > > >>>>> upon
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recovery
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store would have another API like
> > > "rollback(token)"
> > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> token
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the latest committed txn, and be used to
> > > > > rollback
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed image. I think your proposal is
> > > > different,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're proposing we swap step 3) and 4)
> above,
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> atomicity
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still remains since now you may have the
> store
> > > > image
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 100
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changelog is committed at 200. I'd like to
> > learn
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> details
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how it resolves such issues.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways, that's just an example to make the
> > point
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lots
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementational details which would drive
> the
> > > > public
> > > > > > > > >>>>> API
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> design,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should probably first do a POC, and come back
> > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what you think?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 AM Sagar <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sagarmeansocean@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! This seems like a great
> > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion as John on the Configuration part
> > > though.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the 2
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config and its behaviour based on the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> setting/unsetting
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> flag
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing to me as well. Since the KIP seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>> specifically
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> centred
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> around
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB it might be better to add it at the
> > > > Supplier
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> level
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On similar lines, this config name =>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *statestore.transactional.mechanism
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *may
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also need rethinking as the value assigned
> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it(rocksdb_indexbatch)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly seems to assume that rocksdb is
> the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> statestore
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream supports while that's not the case.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, regarding the potential memory
> pressure
> > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> can be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> introduced
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WriteBatchIndex, do you think it might make
> > more
> > > > > > > > >>>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> include
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers/benchmarks on how much the memory
> > > > > consumption
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> might
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> increase?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, the read_uncommitted flag's
> behaviour
> > on
> > > > IQ
> > > > > > > > >>>>> may
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaboration.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These points aside, as I said, this is a
> great
> > > > > > > > >>>>> proposal!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagar.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:35 PM John
> Roesler
> > <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> vvcephei@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Alex!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm really happy to see your proposal. This
> > > > > > > > >>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fills a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-standing gap.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The KIP only mentions RocksDB, but of
> course,
> > > > > Streams
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ships
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InMemory store, and users also plug in
> their
> > > own
> > > > > > > > >>>>> custom
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> stores.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also common to use multiple types of state
> > > stores
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Against this backdrop, the choice to
> > configure
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transactionality
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-level config, as well as to configure
> the
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a top-level config, seems a bit off.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you consider instead just adding the
> > option
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RocksDB*StoreSupplier classes and the
> > factories
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desire to enable the feature by
> default,
> > > but
> > > > > > > > >>>>> with a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feature-flag
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disable it was a factor here. However, as
> you
> > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> out,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major considerations that users should be
> > aware
> > > > of,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> opt-in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a bad choice, either. You could add an
> > > Enum
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> argument
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories like
> > > > > `RocksDBTransactionalMechanism.{NONE,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some points in favor of this approach:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Avoid "stores that don't support
> > transactions
> > > > > > > > >>>>> ignore
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> config"
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Users can choose how to spend their
> memory
> > > > > budget,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> making
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional and others not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * When we add transactional support to
> > > in-memory
> > > > > > > > >>>>> stores,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out what to do with the mechanism
> > config
> > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism to when there are multiple kinds
> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology?)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. caching/flushing/transactions
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coupling between memory usage and
> > flushing
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubling. It also occurs to me that there
> > > seems
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the existing record cache, which is
> also
> > > an
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> in-memory
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> holding
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> area
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records that are not yet written to the
> cache
> > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (albeit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular semantics). Have you considered
> > how
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > >>>>> these
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate? For example, should a "full"
> > WriteBatch
> > > > > > > > >>>>> actually
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> trigger
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flush
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't get OOMEs? If the proposed
> > > > > > > > >>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mechanism
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncommitted writes to be buffered in
> memory,
> > > > until
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantage over just doing the same
> thing
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> RecordCache
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing the WriteBatch at all?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ALOS
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that a transactional store
> can
> > > help
> > > > > > > > >>>>> reduce
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> duplication
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of ALOS. We might want to be
> careful
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> claims
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplication isn't the way that repeated
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> manifests in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores. Rather, it is in the form of dirty
> > > reads
> > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature may reduce the incidence of dirty
> > reads
> > > > > > > > >>>>> during
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reprocessing,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in a predictable way. During regular
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> today,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some records through to the changelog in
> > > between
> > > > > > > > >>>>> commit
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> intervals.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALOS, if any of those dirty writes gets
> > > committed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> changelog
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then upon failure, we have to roll the
> store
> > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> them
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of this new transactional
> > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> That's a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fixable
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the way, but this KIP doesn't seem to
> fix
> > > it.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> wonder
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> if we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any claims about the relationship of this
> > > feature
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ALOS
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is so complex.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IQ
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a reminder, we have a new IQv2 mechanism
> > > now.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to IQv1 to support this
> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>> mechanism,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> versus
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing it for IQv2? Certainly, it seems
> > > > strange
> > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> propose
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for IQv1 and not v2.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your proposal for IQv1, I'm
> unsure
> > > what
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for readCommitted, since the current
> behavior
> > > > also
> > > > > > > > >>>>> reads
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordCache. I guess if
> readCommitted==false,
> > > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> continue
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the cache first, then the Batch, then
> > the
> > > > > store;
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readCommitted==true, we would skip the
> cache
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Batch
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the persistent RocksDB store?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should IQ do if I request to
> > readCommitted
> > > > on
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> store?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for proposing the KIP, and my
> > > > > apologies
> > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> long
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply;
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to air all my concerns in one
> > > "batch"
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> save
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022, at 03:45, Alexander
> > > > > Sorokoumov
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've written a KIP for making Kafka
> Streams
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start a discussion:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-844%3A+Transactional+State+Stores
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Confluent] <https://www.confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suhas Satish
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering Manager
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow us: [image: Blog]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/blog?utm_source=footer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ch.email-signature_type.community_content.blog
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc
> > >[image:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> LinkedIn]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/confluent/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Try Confluent Cloud for Free]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.confluent.io/get-started?utm_campaign=tm.fm-apac_cd.inbound&utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=organic
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>