[GitHub] [pulsar] Technoboy- opened a new pull request #14614: [Branch-2.8] Fix ConsumerBuilderImpl#subscribeAsync blocks calling thread.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

Technoboy- opened a new pull request #14614:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14614


   Cherry-pick https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14433
   
   Fixes #14413
   
   ### Motivation
   
   When Retry topics are enabled, ConsumerBuilderImpl performs a backwards-compatibility check to look for DLQ or Retry topics that were created on previous version of Pulsar using a different naming scheme.
   
   It does this by calling `getPartitionedTopicMetadata` and then using `.get()` to block while waiting for the results
   
   ```java
   if (client.getPartitionedTopicMetadata(oldRetryLetterTopic)
           .get(client.conf.getOperationTimeoutMs(), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).partitions > 0) {
       retryLetterTopic = oldRetryLetterTopic;
   }
   if (client.getPartitionedTopicMetadata(oldDeadLetterTopic)
           .get(client.conf.getOperationTimeoutMs(), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).partitions > 0) {
       deadLetterTopic = oldDeadLetterTopic;
   }
   ```
   
   This was implemented in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10129
   A partial fix to add a Timeout was implemented in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11597
   
   However this fix does still block the calling thread during the lookup.
   
   This can be an issue for code that attempt to call `subscribeAsync` on a non-blocking Pool (such as when using Netty). The signature of `subscribeAsync` implies that it's non-blocking. (And it seems somewhat pointless to have `subscribeAsync` if it blocks anyway)
   
   Note that this is an undocumented *breaking* change in behavior. Up until 2.9, it was safe to call this from a non-blocking pool.
   
   In our case, we were running a custom SLF4J log exporter on the same thread pool, which resulted in a *deadlock* when the number of concurrent `subscribeAsync` calls exceeded the pool size. (This is probably an extreme example and a poor decision on our part, but perhaps a good example of why unexpected blocking can be dangerous)
   
   Note that blocking call is still made even if the retry and DLQ names are explicitly specified in DeadLetterPolicy. In that scenario the check should not be needed. Aside from blocking the calling Thread, this also results in unneeded lookup requests.
   
   ### Modifications
   
   - Make retry and DLQ metadata async.
   
   ### Documentation
   
   - [x] `no-need-doc` 
   
   
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar] codelipenghui merged pull request #14614: [Branch-2.8] Fix ConsumerBuilderImpl#subscribeAsync blocks calling thread.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

codelipenghui merged pull request #14614:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14614


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org