kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-213: Second follow-up on Foreign Key Joins
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:09:27 GMT
@Matthias J. Sax <matthias@confluent.io> - Thoughts on the semantics of
simply leaving it as-is, with the extra tombstones? As John put it: "It may
be unnecessary to "delete" a
non-existant record from a view, but it's never incorrect."

It may not be ideal, but the complexity of eliminating it seems to be high
and frankly I don't have any better ideas at the moment.

Unless you strongly object, I think we'll have to move forward with it
as-is. There is still time to come up with another solution before I
*hopefully* get this into 2.4, but in the meantime I'll look to continue on


On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:57 AM Jan Filipiak <Jan.Filipiak@trivago.com>

> On 10.07.2019 06:25, Adam Bellemare wrote:
> > In my experience (obviously empirical) it seems that many people just
> want
> > the ability to join on foreign keys for the sake of handling all the
> > relational data in their event streams and extra tombstones don't matter
> at
> > all. This has been my own experience from our usage of our internal
> > implementation at my company, and that of many others who have reached
> out
> > to me.
> backing this.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message