Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add options for librdkafka partitioning compatibility #455

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

owenniles
Copy link

This PR allows developers to configure Goka's partitioning behavior to match librdkafka. Open to feedback on the approach!

Why?
To allow the group table to be copartitioned with input topics whose producers use librdkafka's partitioning behavior. There is a subtle difference in the way librdkafka and Sarama convert hashes of keys to partition numbers (embarrassingly, here is my source for this claim). If a Goka processor processing an input topic with librdkafka-based producers uses sarama's partitioning behavior, the group table will not be copartitioned with the input topics.

Changes

  • Added a goka.ProducerBuilder constructor that allows developers more granular control over the producer's sarama.HashPartitioner, which is responsible for assigning keys to partitions.
    • Technically, you can already customize the sarama.HashPartitioner by writing a custom goka.ProducerBuilder, but I believe it would be nicer if Goka provided a first-party way to do this.
  • Added a view option goka.WithViewHashUnsigned that configures the view to calculate the number of the partition in which a key can be found in the same way librdkafka would.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes in this file were inspired by the implementation of this function.

@owenniles owenniles force-pushed the owen/librdkafka-compat branch from 3b27a4d to 0f5c477 Compare July 15, 2024 19:53
@owenniles
Copy link
Author

It occurred to me that setting the partitioning behavior for each lookup table may be desirable as well #456.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant