I think my suggestion was unclear. I was referring to the name guardrail, using the same infra as guardrails, rather than a separate concept. Not applying it like we do table options.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:44 AM Bernardo Botella < conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: > Hi Ariel and Jon, > > Let me address your question first. Yes, AND is supported in the proposal. > Below you can find some examples of different constraints applied to the > same column. > > As per the LENGTH name instead of sizeOf as in the proposal, I am also not > opposed to it if it is more consistent with terminology in the databases > universe. > > So, to recap, there seems to be general agreement on the usefulness of the > Constraints Framework. > Now, from the feedback that has arrived after the voting has been called, > I see there are three different proposals for syntax: > > 1.- > The syntax currently described in the CEP. Example: > CREATE TYPE keyspace.cidr_address_ipv4 ( > ip_adress inet, > subnet_mask int, > CONSTRAINT subnet_mask > 0, > CONSTRAINT subnet_mask < 32 > ) > > 2.- > As Jon suggested, leaving this definitions to more specific Guardrails at > table level. Example, something like: > column_min_int_value_size_threshold_keyspace_address_ipv4_ip_adress = 0 > column_max_int_value_size_threshold_keyspace_address_ipv4_ip_adress = 32 > > 3.- > As Ariel suggested, having the CHECK keyword added to align consistency > with SQL. Example: > CREATE TYPE keyspace.cidr_address_ipv4 ( > ip_adress inet, > subnet_mask int, > CONSTRAINT CHECK subnet_mask > 0, > CONSTRAINT CHECK subnet_mask < 32 > ) > > For the guardrails vs cql syntax, I think that keeping the conceptual > separation that has been explored in this thread, and perfectly recapped by > Doug, is closer to what we are trying to achieve with this framework. In my > opinion, having them in the CQL schema definition provides those > application level constraints that Doug mentions in an more accesible way > than having to configure such specific guardrais. > > For the addition of the CHECK keyword, I'm definitely not opposed to it if > it helps Cassandra users coming from other databases understand concepts > that were already familiar to them. > > I hope this helps move the conversation forward, > Bernardo > > > > On Jun 24, 2024, at 12:17 PM, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > > Hi, > > I see a vote for this has been called. I should have provided more prompt > feedback sooner. > > I am a strong +1 on adding column level constraints being a good thing to > add. I'm not too concerned about row/partition/table level constraints, but > I would like to change the syntax before I would be +1 on this CEP. > > It would be good to align the syntax as closely as possible to our > existing syntax, and if not that then MySQL/Postgres. For example it looks > like we don't have a string length function so maybe add `LENGTH` > (consistent with MySQL/Postgres) to also use with column level constraints. > > It looks like there are generally two forms of constraint syntax, one is > expressed as part of the column definition, and the other is a named or > anonymous constraint on the table. > https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_check.asp > > Can we align with having these column level ones as `CHECK` constraints > like in SQL, and `CONSTRAINT [constraint_name] CHECK` would be used if > creating a named or multi-column constraint? > > Will column level check constraints support `AND` so that you can specify > multiple constraints on the column? I am not sure if that is supported in > other databases, but it would be good to align on that as well. > > RE some implementation things to keep in mind: > > If TCM is in use and the constraints are defined in the schema data > structure this should work fine with Accord because all coordinators > (regular, recovery) will deterministically agree on the constraints being > enforced BUT... this also has to map to how/when constraints are enforced. > > Both Accord and Paxos work best when the constraints are enforced when the > final mutation to be applied is created and not later when it is being > applied to the CFS. This also reduces duplication of enforcement checking > work to just the coordinator for the write. > > Ariel > > On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 5:23 PM, Bernardo Botella wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I am proposing this CEP: > CEP-42: Constraints Framework - CASSANDRA - Apache Software Foundation > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > cwiki.apache.org > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > <favicon.ico> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > > > And I’m looking for feedback from the community. > > Thanks a lot! > Bernardo > > >
