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

Fix retention and backlog quota diagram #973

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024

Conversation

shibd
Copy link
Member

@shibd shibd commented Nov 6, 2024

The current retention and backlog quota diagram does not match the actual implementation.

Refer to issue: apache/pulsar#22473 (comment)
Discuss thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/g3hc3o0kmn1yvcfdj6xnlbq4vsdskx9o

Preview

Retention policy
image

Backlog quotas
image

@shibd shibd requested a review from lhotari November 6, 2024 12:03
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Pulsar's [admin interface](admin-api-overview.md) enables you to manage both ret
By default, when a Pulsar message arrives at a broker, the message is stored until it has been acknowledged on all subscriptions, at which point it is marked for deletion. You can override this behavior and retain messages that have already been acknowledged on all subscriptions by setting a *retention policy* for all topics in a given namespace. Retention is based on both a *size limit* and a *time limit*.

The diagram below illustrates the concept of message retention.
![Concept of message retention in Pulsar.](/assets/retention.svg)
![Concept of message retention in Pulsar.](/assets/retention-new.svg)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just wondering why isn't the file retention.svg simply updated? If this diagram update applies to all versions of Pulsar, there shouldn't be a need to use a new file name.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since I haven't modified the references for older versions, like 2.10, I've kept the original files.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@lhotari WHYT?

Do we need to update all versions of the documentation to point to the new diagrams? This way, I can remove the original diagrams.

@shibd shibd merged commit 6e206e6 into apache:main Nov 12, 2024
2 checks passed
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.

4 participants