> The point of this kind of log architecture is that producers never need to know if a consumer has consumed something, because the log is designed to allow as

> The point of this kind of log architecture is that producers never need to know if a consumer has consumed something, because the log is designed to allow as many consumers as you like to reliably work through the log from any given position. Right I think we're saying the same thing. In the article checkpointing was introduced to enable safely managing the size of the log, i.e. it appears that in this use case _somebody_ needs to know whether the consumers are caught up in order to adhere to at-least-once semantics. It just seemed to me that if you reach the point where you're rolling your own to solve that problem there are other possible solutions. I haven't read the linked-in piece yet but I intend to. It was also linked in the article. Thanks for linking it here.