Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Date: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 15:50 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:54 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > I think this is a blurring of lines of systems however. I _think_ the > point Alex is making (corr

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:54 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > I think this is a blurring of lines of systems however. I _think_ the > point Alex is making (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the transaction > system will need to track the transaction timestamps that were witnessed by > each read for

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

d I think this is relatively straightforward. From: Henrik Ingo Date: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:25 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:25 AM Alex Miller wrote: > I have, purely out of laziness, been engaging

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:25 AM Alex Miller wrote: > I have, purely out of laziness, been engaging on this topic on ASF Slack as > opposed to dev@[1]. Benedict has been overly generous in answering > questions and considering future optimizations there, but it means that I > inadvertently forke

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

watermark, so that we may always pick a consistent timestamp. From: Alex Miller Date: Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 22:25 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I have, purely out of laziness, been engaging on this topic on ASF Slack as opposed to

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

; > > > For those who missed it, my talk discussing this CEP at ApacheCon is now > available to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAE7E-QEAvk > > > > > > > > From: Oleksandr Petrov > > Date: Monday, 11 October 2021 at 10:11 > > To: dev &g

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

11 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions >> I support this proposal. From what I can understand, this proposal moves > us towards having the building blocks we need to correctly deliver some of > the most often requested features in Cassandra.

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

For those who missed it, my talk discussing this CEP at ApacheCon is now available to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAE7E-QEAvk From: Oleksandr Petrov Date: Monday, 11 October 2021 at 10:11 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > I support this propo

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

> > allowing server-side logic to be included, but a Calvin approach will > never > > be able to offer SQL compatibility. > > > > Guarantees: Calvin transactions are strictly serializable. There is no > > additional complexity or performance hit to generalizing to multi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

sequencing and scheduling layers, which are leaderless, and Calvin’s > requirements for the storage layer are easily met by C*. But Calvin also > requires a global consensus protocol and LWT is almost certainly not > sufficiently performant, so this would require ZK or etcd (reasonable for a

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ty, this is less painful than for other systems. > > Application to Cassandra: B-. Distributed transactions are handled by the > sequencing and scheduling layers, which are leaderless, and Calvin’s > requirements for the storage layer are easily met by C*. But Calvin also > requires a

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi Jonathan,Following up on my message yesterday as it looks like our replies may have crossed en route.Thanks for bumping your message from earlier in our discussion. I believe we have addressed most of these questions on the thread, in addition to offering a presentation on this and related w

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi folks,Thanks for discussion on this proposal, and also to Benedict who’s been fielding questions on the list!I’d like to restate the goals and problem statement captured by this proposal and frame context.Today, lightweight transactions limit users to transacting over a single partition. Thi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

endorses the stated goals of the CEP. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 16:05 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions The problem that I keep pointing out is that you've created this CEP for Accord without first getting consensus that the goal

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

o opportunity > to point out problems, either with the fundamental approach or with the > specific implementation. So please point out some problems I can engage > with! > > > From: Jonathan Ellis > Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 15:48 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUS

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:21 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > The goals of the CEP are stated clearly, and these were the goals we had > going into the (multi-month) research project we undertook before proposing > this CEP. Th

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:21 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > The goals of the CEP are stated clearly, and these were the goals we had > going into the (multi-month) research project we undertook before proposing > this CEP. These goals are necessarily value judgements, so we cannot expect > that e

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

discuss them. If you dispute the goals, please make an argument as to why. If our goals are irreconcilable, file another CEP. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 14:41 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I've repeatedly explained wh

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

e constructive and respectful engagement to me, and > I am losing interest. > > > > From: Jonathan Ellis > Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 00:02 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > I honestly can't understand the perspective that on

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

constructive and respectful engagement to me, and I am losing interest. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 00:02 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I honestly can't understand the perspective that on the one hand, you're asking fo

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

en the purpose of a CEP – seeking buy > in – is invalidated, because the work must be complete before you know the > answers. > > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:31 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

I don’t have any objection to call a vote, I think we had a good time to discuss and I’m satisfied with the clarifications to my questions. Thanks Benedict, Blake and Scott for detailing the proposal and answering questions. I think everyone is excited and looking forward to this groundbreaking w

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi everyone, It’s been a month since I brought this proposal forward. I think we’re ready for a vote, and I’d like to get a show of hands to see if others agree. I don’t intend for this to curtail any further questions or suggestions. I’m grateful for the continued healthy discussion, but from

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:20 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > I haven’t encountered Galera – do you have any technical papers to hand? > > Yes, but it's a whole thesis :-) https://www.inf.usi.ch/faculty/pedone/Paper/199x/These-2090-Pedone.pdf I guess parts of that were presented in conference pap

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

alera – do you have any technical papers to hand? From: Henrik Ingo Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 16:24 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 5:30 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Typical value for SkewMax in

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 5:30 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Typical value for SkewMax in e.g. the Spanner paper, some CockroachDB > discussions = 7 ms > > I think skew max is likely to be much lower than this, even on commodity > hardware. Bear in mind that unlike Cockroach and Spanner correctn

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

transactions. So the API from the perspective of a developer building features on top is pretty simple. From: Paulo Motta Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:40 To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > With respect to this, in my view this kind of detail is

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ou know the > answers. > > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:31 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > From the CEP: > > Batches (including unconditional batches) on transactiona

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:31 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions >From the CEP: Batches (including unconditional batches) on transactional tables will receive ACID properties, and grammatically correct conditional batch operations that would

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

, 1 October 2021 at 15:30 To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Can you just answer what palpable feature will be available once this CEP lands because this is still not clear to me (and perhaps to others) from the current CEP structure. The current document deta

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

y be geo-partitioned so that related state is being updated from the same region, it might simply not be needed – at least any time soon. From: Henrik Ingo Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 14:38 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Hi Benedict Sin

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

about other CEP that could have been. > > If you want to start a separate exploratory discussion thread about CEP > structure without filing a CEP feel free to do so. > > > From: Paulo Motta > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:04 > To: Cassandra DEV > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

. If you want to start a separate exploratory discussion thread about CEP structure without filing a CEP feel free to do so. From: Paulo Motta Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 15:04 To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > If you want to impose your vi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

a discussion thread. I can then respond in detail to why I perceive > this approach to be flawed, in a dedicated context. > > > From: Paulo Motta > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 14:48 > To: Cassandra DEV > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > >

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

can then respond in detail to why I perceive this approach to be flawed, in a dedicated context. From: Paulo Motta Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 14:48 To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > The proposal as it stands today is exceptionally thoro

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

if you feel this is necessary. > > > > From: Paulo Motta > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 13:58 > To: Cassandra DEV > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > I share similar feelings as jbellis that this proposal seems to be focusing > on the pro

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:37 PM Henrik Ingo wrote: > A known optimization for the hot rows problem is to "hint" or manually > force clients to direct all updates to the hot row to the same node, > essentially making the system leader based. This allows the database to > start processing new update

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ordinator cannot arrive out of order when using TPC? henrik On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:59 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Ok, it’s time for the weekly poking of the hornet’s nest. > > Any more thoughts, questions or criticisms, anyone? > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Fr

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

it may be engaged with on the same terms. From: bened...@apache.org Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 14:19 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I think this is getting circular and unproductive. Basic disagreements about whether the CEP

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

-exist, if you feel this is necessary. From: Paulo Motta Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 13:58 To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I share similar feelings as jbellis that this proposal seems to be focusing on the protocol itself but lacking the actual

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

October 2021 at 09:14 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > Hi Jonathan, > > It would be great if we could achieve a bandwidth higher than 1-2 short > emails per week. It remains unclear to me what your goal is, and it would > help if

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

opinion) entirely out of scope for this CEP. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 05:00 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions The obstacle for me is you've provided a protocol but not a fully fleshed out architecture, so it's hard to fill

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

out of scope for this CEP. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 05:00 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions The obstacle for me is you've provided a protocol but not a fully fleshed out architecture, so it's hard to fill in some of the bl

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

in the interactive > transaction, whereas the timestamp-validating approach can use a LAN > round-trip for each step besides the final one, and is also much simpler to > implement. > > > From: Blake Eggleston > Date: Thursday, 30 September 2021 at 05:47 > To: dev@cassandra.

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

besides the final one, and is also much simpler to implement. From: Blake Eggleston Date: Thursday, 30 September 2021 at 05:47 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions You could establish a lower timestamp bound and buffer transaction state on the

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

have to assume is your benchmark in this >> regard). I do not expect to deliver either functionality initially, but >> Accord takes us most of the way there for both. >> >> >> From: Jonathan Ellis >> Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 05:36 >> To:

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

dnesday, 22 September 2021 at 05:36 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > Right, I'm looking for exactly a discussion on the high level goals. > Instead of saying "here's the goals and we ruled out X because Y" we should > star

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

est. > > Any more thoughts, questions or criticisms, anyone? > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Friday, 24 September 2021 at 22:41 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > I’m not aware of anybody having taken any notes

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Ok, it’s time for the weekly poking of the hornet’s nest. Any more thoughts, questions or criticisms, anyone? From: bened...@apache.org Date: Friday, 24 September 2021 at 22:41 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I’m not aware of anybody

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

the blanks. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Friday, 24 September 2021 at 20:28 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Does anyone have notes for those of us who couldn't make the call? On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:35 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Hi everyone, &

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

day, 22 September 2021 at 16:22 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > No, I would expect to deliver strict serializable interactive transactions > using Accord. These would simply corroborate that the participating keys > had not modi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

. https://gather.town/app/2UKSboSjqKXIXliE/ac2021-cass-social From: bened...@apache.org Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 16:22 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions No, I would expect to deliver strict serializable interactive transactions

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Ingo Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 15:15 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:56 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Could you explain why you believe this trade-off is necessary? We can > support full SQL jus

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:56 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Could you explain why you believe this trade-off is necessary? We can > support full SQL just fine with Accord, and I hope that we eventually do so. > I assume this is really referring to interactive transactions = multiple round trips

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

I feel like I should volunteer to write about MongoDB transactions. TL;DR Snapshot Isolation and Causal Consistency using Raft'ish, Lamport clock and 2PC. This leads to the age old discussion whether users really want serializability or not. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:44 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

September 2021 at 04:19 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Demonstrating how subtle, complex and difficult to pin-down this topic is, Fauna’s recent blog post implies they may have migrated to a leaderless sequencing protocol (an earlier blog post

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Sure, that works for me. From: Patrick McFadin Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 04:47 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I would be happy to host a Zoom as I've done in the past. I can post a transcript and the recording after the

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

initially, but Accord takes us most of the way there for both. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 05:36 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Right, I'm looking for exactly a discussion on the high level goals. Instead of saying "

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

so under recommended usage we are a high-availability leaderless CP > database. > > > From: Jonathan Ellis > Date: Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 23:45 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > Benedict, thanks for taking the lead in putting t

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Demonstrating how subtle, complex and difficult to pin-down this topic is, Fauna’s recent blog post implies they may have migrated to a leaderless sequencing protocol (an earlier blog post made clear they used a leader process

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

hich I interpreted to be replica sets in current C*, not sure if > that's correct) can change in non linearizable ways I don't think > Property 3.3 can hold. I think you hint at a solution to this in > section 5 but I'm not sure I grok it. > > Yes, it does. That’

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

perhaps they are moving towards a similar approach. From: bened...@apache.org Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 03:52 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Hi Jonathan, These other systems are incompatible with the goals of the CEP. I do

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

t we are not an AP database under normal recommended operation. A minority in any network partition cannot reach QUORUM, so under recommended usage we are a high-availability leaderless CP database. From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 23:45 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CE

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Benedict, thanks for taking the lead in putting this together. Since Cassandra is the only relevant database today designed around a leaderless architecture, it's quite likely that we'll be better served with a custom transaction design instead of trying to retrofit one from CP systems. The whitep

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On client generated timestamps... On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 7:17 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > * Relatedly I'm curious if there is any way that the client can > acquire the timestamp used by the transaction before sending the data > so we can make the operations idempotent and unrelated to the > coordi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

by Cassandra – safely. From: Joseph Lynch Date: Monday, 20 September 2021 at 17:17 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Benedict, Thank you very much for advancing this proposal, I'm extremely excited to see flexible quorums used in this way a

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

protocol, as specified in their pseudocode. The reference to newer ballots is simply classic paxos leader election, so that only one coordinator may complete the transaction. From: Miles Garnsey Date: Monday, 20 September 2021 at 09:34 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

An open question is > > if we want to support live downgrades back to Classic Paxos. I kind of > > expect that we will, though that will no doubt be informed by the > > difficulty of doing so. > > > > Either way, this means the deprecation cycle for Classic Paxos is p

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ccord, and existing clusters to need to run a migration > command after fully upgrading the cluster. > > From: Sylvain Lebresne > Date: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 14:13 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > Fwiw,

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

rading the cluster. From: Sylvain Lebresne Date: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 14:13 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Fwiw, it makes sense to me to talk about CQL syntax evolution separately. It's pretty clear to me that we _can_ ex

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ng. > > Do people also generally agree this work warrants a distinct CEP, or would > people prefer to see this developed under the same umbrella? > > > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 09:19 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [D

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Date: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 09:19 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > perhaps we can prepare these as examples There are grammatically correct CQL queries today that cannot be executed, that this work will naturally remove

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

dev@cassandra.apache.org Cc: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Adding a few notes from my perspective as well – Re: the UX question, thanks for asking this. I agree that offering a set of example queries and use cases may help make the specific use cases m

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Adding a few notes from my perspective as well – Re: the UX question, thanks for asking this.I agree that offering a set of example queries and use cases may help make the specific use cases more understandable; perhaps we can prepare these as examples to be included in the CEP.I do think that all

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

To: Cassandra DEV Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions I can start with some preliminary comments while I get more familiarized with the proposal: - First and foremost, I believe this proposal in its current form focuses on the protocol details (HOW?) but lacks the bigger pi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

From: bened...@apache.org >> Date: Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 21:27 >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions >> Hi Jake, >> >> > What structural changes are planned to support an external dependency >>

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

or > questions? Does anybody still anticipate doing so in the near future? Or > shall we move to a vote? > > From: bened...@apache.org > Date: Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 21:27 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions >

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

rg Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Great thanks for the information On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:44 PM Blake Eggleston wrote: > Hi Jake, > > > 1. Will this effort eventually replace consistency levels in C*? I ask > > because one of the shortcomings

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

hink the JVM is particularly suited to offering quite powerful distributed transactions in this vein, and it will be interesting to see what we might develop in this direction in future. From: Jake Luciani Date: Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 19:27 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Great thanks for the information On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:44 PM Blake Eggleston wrote: > Hi Jake, > > > 1. Will this effort eventually replace consistency levels in C*? I ask > > because one of the shortcomings of our paxos today is > > it can be easily mixed with non serialized consistencies

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi Jake, > 1. Will this effort eventually replace consistency levels in C*? I ask > because one of the shortcomings of our paxos today is > it can be easily mixed with non serialized consistencies and therefore > users commonly break consistency by for example reading at CL.ONE while > also > us

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi Benedict! I haven't gone too deeply into this proposal but it's very exciting to see this kind of innovation! Some basic questions which are tangentially related with this effort I didn't see covered in the CEP. 1. Will this effort eventually replace consistency levels in C*? I ask because

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 5:06 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > I was thinking that a path similar to Calvin/FaunaDB is certainly > looming in the horizon at least. > > I’m not sure which aspect of these systems you are referring to. Unless I > have misunderstood, I consider them to be strictly inf

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

ptember 2021 at 14:06 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:26 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > whether I should just* think of this as "better and more efficient LWT” > > So, the LWT concept is a C

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:26 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > whether I should just* think of this as "better and more efficient LWT” > > So, the LWT concept is a Cassandra one and doesn’t have an agreed-upon > definition. My understanding of a core feature/limitation of LWTs is that > they oper

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

not as hard as you might think. It is probably outside of the scope of this work, though the two would dovetail very nicely. From: Henrik Ingo Date: Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 09:24 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions On Tue, Sep 7, 2021

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:31 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Of course, but we may have to be selective in our back-and-forth. We can > always take some discussion off-list to keep it manageable. > > I'll try to converge.Sorry if a few comments were a bit "editorial" in the first message. I find

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

easier for you to parse, as it is of course fully specified there with no ambiguity. Or we can discuss off list, or perhaps on the community slack channel. From: Henrik Ingo Date: Monday, 6 September 2021 at 19:08 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi all I should start by briefly introducing myself: I've worked a year plus at Datastax, but in a manager role. I have no expectations near term to actually contribute code or docs to Cassandra, rather I hope my work indirectly will enable others to do so. As such I also don't expect to be very v

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

gration with > Cassandra, I think there is value in maintaining a distinct library for the > core functionality - so long as the burden remains manageable. > > From: Nate McCall > Date: Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 22:30 > To: dev > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

McCall Date: Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 22:30 To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions Hi Benedict, If I'm parsing this correctly, you want to include the stand-alone library in the project as a separate repo to begin with, correct? (I'm +1 on that, if so).

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi Benedict, If I'm parsing this correctly, you want to include the stand-alone library in the project as a separate repo to begin with, correct? (I'm +1 on that, if so). Otherwise I am very intrigued by the paper and proposal. This looks excellent. Thanks Benedict, et all for putting this togethe

[DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-15%3A+General+Purpose+Transactions Whitepaper: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/188744725/Accord.pdf