> Is it OK for the community if we added nodetool get/set guardrailsconfig
commands to 4.1, 5.0 and trunk? Then, under (4), the CQL approach would be
delivered as well.
This seems non-controversial and the only reason it was not done before
release (to the best of my knowledge) is the hope that u
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 6:20 AM Štefan Miklošovič
wrote:
> Is it OK for the community if we added nodetool get/set guardrailsconfig
> commands to 4.1, 5.0 and trunk? Then, under (4), the CQL approach would be
> delivered as well.
I am struggling to find a scenario where it wouldn't be ok to add
There is (1) which attempts to add guardrails get/set configuration to
nodetool.
When first encountered, I suggested that we might do a CQL vtable approach
instead.
This is still not done and Paulo asked if the nodetool approach could not
be still added to 5.0 (2)
The justification is that we ha
