codec(ticdc): kafka simple encoding protocol support encoding checkpoint event. #9911
Conversation
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
the
release-note-none
3AceShowHand
changed the title
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
the
size/L
3AceShowHand
force-pushed
the
simple-checkpoint
branch
from
7c6d88e to
2f0501f
Compare
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
size/M
|
Please add a issue to track the whole feature and link every related PR to it. |
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
size/L
3AceShowHand
changed the title
|
/test cdc-integration-storage-test |
|
/test dm-integration-test |
|
/retest |
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
needs-1-more-lgtm
|
@asddongmen: Your lgtm message is repeated, so it is ignored. In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
| @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ const ( | |||
| ProtocolCraft | |||
| ProtocolOpen | |||
| ProtocolCsv | |||
| ProtocolSimple | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why use "Simple" as the new protocol name? We will add claim-check large message feature for this protocol, we will add water mark, checkpoint, schema tracking & bootstrap and more other features, can we use a proper name that can represent its functionalities? How about SufficientJson since it is json, but not each message contains the full schema information and is more sufficient than CanalJson?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or ExtensibleJson which means we added many customized feature for this new protocol?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name is not decided yet, use simple temporarily.
Json should not be part of the protocol, since this new protocol does not only support JSON format, we may make it support other encoding formats such as avro, cbor.
Sufficient sounds good to me. Extensible is also a good name, but it's not easy to explain the customized, since this new protocol belongs to the TiCDC itself, all things are customized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the concrete name, further discussion is required.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: asddongmen, nongfushanquan The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
[LGTM Timeline notifier]Timeline:
|
|
/test dm-integration-test |
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #9900
What is changed and how it works?
Check List
Tests
Questions
Will it cause performance regression or break compatibility?
Do you need to update user documentation, design documentation or monitoring documentation?
Release note