This page is meant as a template for writing a KIP. To create a KIP choose Tools->Copy on this page and modify with your content and replace the heading with the next KIP number and a description of your issue. Replace anything in italics with your own description.

Status

Current state: Under DiscussionAccepted

Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]

JIRA: here [Change the link from KAFKA-58561 to your own ticket]

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

Motivation

Describe the problems you are trying to solve.

...

Doing this is enable future work to refactor the TopicCommand/kafka-topics.sh to function via a connection to a broker rather than interacting directly with ZooKeeper.

Public Interfaces

New network protocol APIs will be added: 

• CreatePartitionsRequest and CreatePartitionsResponseIncreasePartitionCountsRequest and KIP-195: AdminClient.increasePartitions

The AdminClient API will have new methods added (plus overloads for options):

• increasePartitionCountscreatePartitions(Map<String, PartitionCount> partitionCountsNewPartition> newPartitions)

Proposed Changes

AdminClient:

...

createPartitions()

...

• This API is synchronous in the sense that the client can assume that the partition count has been changed (or the request was rejected) once they have obtained the result for the topic from the AlterPartitionCountsResult CreatePartitionsResult.

/**
 * <p>Increase the partitionnumber of countpartitions of the topics given as the keys of {@code countsnewPartitions}
 * according to the corresponding values.</p>
 */
public IncreasePartitionCountsResultCreatePartitionsResult increasePartitionCountscreatePartitions(Map<String, PartitionCount>NewPartitions> countsnewPartitions,
                    IncreasePartitionCountsOptionsCreatePartitionsOptions options)
public IncreasePartitionCountsResultCreatePartitionsResult increasePartitionCountscreatePartitions(Map<String, PartitionCount>NewPartitions> countsnewPartitions) 

Where:

/** Describes anew changepartitions infor a particular topic's partition count. */
public class PartitionCountNewPartitions {
    private int partitionCountnewNumPartitions;
    private List<List<Integer>> assignments;
    private PartitionCountNewPartitions(int partitionCountnewNumPartitions) { ... }

    /** 
     * Increase the partitionnumber count for a topicof partitions to the given {@code newCount}. 
     * The assignment of new replicas to brokers will be decided by the broker
     * but may subsequently be moved using {@link #reassignPartitions(Map)}.</p>
     */
    public static PartitionCountNewPartitions increasePartitionCountincreaseTo(int newCount) { ... }

    /** 
     * <p>Increase the partitionnumber countof for apartitions topic to the given {@code newCount} 
     * assigning the new partitions according to the given {@code newAssignments}.
     * The length of {@code newAssignments} should equal {@code newCount - oldCount}, since 
     * the assignment of existing partitions are not changed. 
     * Each inner list of {@code newAssignments} should have a length equal to 
     * the topic's replication factor. 
     * The first broker id in each inner list is the "preferred replica".</p>
     *
     * <p>For example, suppose a topic currently has a replication factor of 2, and 
     * has 3 partitions. The number of partitions can be increased to 4 
     * (with broker 1 being the preferred replica for the new partition) using a 
     * {@code PartitionCount} constructed like this:</p>
     *
     * <pre><code>PartitionCount<pre><code>NewPartitions.increasePartitionCountincreaseTo(4, Arrays.asList(Arrays.asList(1, 2))</code></pre>
     *
     */
    public static PartitionCountNewPartitions increasePartitionCountincreaseTo(int newCount, List<List<Integer>> newAssignments) { ... }
}
    

public class IncreasePartitionCountsOptionsCreatePartitionsOptions {
    public IncreasePartitionCountsOptionsCreatePartitionsOptions() { ... }
    public Integer timeoutMs() { ... }
    public IncreasePartitionCountsOptionsCreatePartitionsOptions timeoutMs(Integer timeoutMs) { ... }
    public boolean validateOnly() { ... }
    /**
     * Validate the request only: Do not actually change any partition counts.
     */
    public IncreasePartitionCountsOptionsCreatePartitionsOptions validateOnly() { ... }
}
 
public class IncreasePartitionCountsResultCreatePartitionsResult {
    // package access constructor
    Map<String, KafkaFuture<Void>> values() { ... }
    KafkaFuture<Void> all() { ... }
}

Network Protocol:

...

CreatePartitionsRequest and

...

CreatePartitionsResponse

The request can must be sent to any brokerthe controller.

The request will require the ALTER operation on the Topic resource.The request is subject to the CreateTopicPolicy of the broker as configured by the broker's create.topic.policy.class.name config property. This is to ensure that the policy applies to topics modified after creation.

After validating the request the broker calls AdminUtils.addPartitions() which ultimately updates the topic partition assignment znode (/brokers/topics/${topic}).

The controller then waits for the change to the number of partitions to be reflected in its metadata cache before sending the CreatePartitionsResponse.

IncreasePartitionCountsRequestCreatePartitionsRequest => [topic_partition_count] timeout
  topic_partition_count => topic partition_count
    topic => STRING
    partition_count => count [assignment]
      count => INT32
      assignment => [INT32]
  timeout => INT32

...

assignment

Note: When a NewPartitions is constructed without a newAssignments array it results in a null assignment array in the CreatePartitionsRequest.

IncreasePartitionCountsResponseCreatePartitionsResponse => throttle_time_ms [topic_partition_count_error]
  topic_partition_count_error => topic error_code error_message
    topic => STRING
    error_code => INT16
    error_message => NULLABLE_STRING

...

• TOPIC_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED (29) The user lacked Alter on the topic

• POLICY_VIOLATION(44) The request violated the configured policy

•  INVALID_TOPIC_EXCEPTION (17) If the topic doesn't exist

• INVALID_PARTITIONS (37) If the partition count was <= the current partition count for the topic.
• INVALID_REPLICA_ASSIGNMENT (39)  if the size of any of the lists contained in the partitions list was not equal to the topic replication factor.
• INVALID_REQUEST (42) If duplicate topics appeared in the request, or the size of the partitions list did not equal the number of new partitions, or if the size of any of the lists contained in the partitions list was not equal to the topic replication factor
• REASSIGNMENT_IN_PROGRESS (new) If a partition reassignment is in progress. It is necessary to prevent increasing partitions at the same time so that we can be sure the partition has a meaningful replication factor.
• NONE (0) The topic partition count was changed successfully.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

...

...

This is a new API and won't directly affect existing users.

Rejected Alternatives

NewPartitions is inconsistent because it takes a number of partitions, but only assignments for the new partitions. One is absolute and the other is a difference. The reasons for this are:

• NewPartitions could take an increment, rather than the new "absolute" number of partitions. But this makes the request non-idempotent, with consequent possibilities of a double increment. This would be particularly bad because it's not possible to decrease the partition count.
• NewPartitions could take a complete assignment for both old and new partitions. This would incorrectly suggest that the request could increase the number of partitions and effect a reassignment of the existing partitions at the same time. The server would have to either ignore the old partitions (in which case why were they required to be provided?) or validate them (in which case the client has to know the old assignment in order to add more, which is needlessly difficult).

Numerous names were considered: increasePartitions, increatePartitionCount, increaseNumPartitions, addPartitions. It was felt that createPartitions() successfully implied that only an increase was possible, and was consistent with createTopics. Simiarly numerous names were considered for NewPartitions. The name of the static factory methods was chosen to alleviate the awkward semantics mentioned above, making it clear that the number argument was the new total partition count, and not an increment.

Consideration was given to whether to support non-consecutive partition ids. No use cases for non-consecutive partition ids were identified, so this is not supportedIf there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.