-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
[pkg/stanza] Do we need flushUncombined
in the recombine operator?
#22140
Comments
Pinging code owners for pkg/stanza: @djaglowski. See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
I agree we don't need it. Similar issue here, just hasn't been a priority yet. #10281 |
I'd like to work on it, can I get it assigned to me, thanks! |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
There are a couple of places where we forcefully flush all the batch uncombined:
MaxSources
limitShutdown
signal is received.Question: Why this flush has to be uncombined? Can we do the regular flush with combined batches? It likely won't take more time, and we will not need to keep all the entries during the batching, just one (first or latest).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: