fetcher: Skip transactional control batches #72
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Author
|
We're a bit short of Yelp-org members today. I've received a +1 from |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Back-port support for transactional control messages in kafka-python. Although longer-term we want to switch all consumers to confluent-kaka, this quick fix means that kafka-python-based consumers at least shouldn't crash if there are ever transactional producers writing to a consumed topic.
Note that this does not mean that the consumer supports transactions--there is still no support for the
read_committedisolation.level(more here).This code comes from dpkp#2361, original author
bradenneal1. I didn't have a better way to write this myself. Unfortunately, writing a test for this would be quite difficult with the current test infrastructure. We have a history of back-porting stuff like this without tests, though (e.g. #71).