I’m looking forward to a solution to this and than...
# generalu
萧易客
03/30/2024, 10:03 AMI’m looking forward to a solution to this and thank you in advance.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/22387
l
Lari Hotari
03/30/2024, 10:30 AMIt seems like a bug. -1 isn't properly handled in the backlog quota check.
u
萧易客
03/30/2024, 10:48 AMI’m curious what’s the potential problem with this combination? Now it is rejected at the beginning.
- backlog quota: size(20G) time(30d)
- retention policy: size(2G) time(1w)
萧易客
03/30/2024, 10:53 AMMaybe the key problem is why we need this compare check at all?
萧易客
03/30/2024, 10:54 AMPerhaps @merlimat have some thoughts?
l
Lari Hotari
03/30/2024, 10:56 AMI’m curious what’s the potential problem with this combination? Now it is rejected at the beginning.
- backlog quota: size(20G) time(30d)
- retention policy: size(2G) time(1w)
It is a bug in this case
u
萧易客
03/30/2024, 10:59 AMIt is a bug in this caseShould we just remove this compare check between backlog quota and retention policy? BTW, The doc also didn’t mention this limitation.
l
Lari Hotari
03/30/2024, 11:03 AMFixing the bug seems like the first step. Removing the check doesn't make sense to me. In that case there should be a config option to specify whether the backlog quota is a default or an upper bound.
u
萧易客
03/30/2024, 11:11 AM> the backlog quota is a default or an upper bound.
Would you please explain more about this?
Now this check is to make sure that backlog quota is greater than the message retention policy, and it’s correct in this case.
Copy code
- backlog quota: size(20G) time(30d)
- retention policy: size(2G) time(1w)2 Views