1:26 AM Blake Eggleston
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Henrik,
> >> >
> >> > I would agree that the local serial experience for valid use cases
> >> should
> >> > be supported in some form before legacy LWT is replaced by Accord
> >
>> Great! It seems there's a seed of consensus on this point.
>>
>>
>> > Regarding your read committed proposal, I think this CEP discussion has
>> > already spent too much time talking about hypothetical SQL
>> implementations,
>> >
However, since you’ve
> asked
> > a well thought out question with concrete goals and implementation ideas,
> > I’m happy to answer it. I just ask that if you want to discuss it beyond
> my
> > reply, you start a separate ‘[IDEA] Read committed transaction with
> Acc
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:38 PM bened...@apache.org
wrote:
> It may have been lost in the back and forth (there’s been a lot of
> emails), but I outlined an approach for READ COMMITTED (and SERIALIZABLE)
> read isolation that does not require a WAN trip.
Yes, thank you. I knew I had read it but
> It seems like potentially every statement now needs to go through the Accord
> consensus
protocol, and this could become expensive, where my goal was to design the
simplest and most lightweight example thinkable. BUT for read-only Accord
transactions, where I specifically also don't care about s
als and implementation ideas,
> I’m happy to answer it. I just ask that if you want to discuss it beyond my
> reply, you start a separate ‘[IDEA] Read committed transaction with Accord’
> thread where we could talk about it a bit more without it feeling like we
> need to delay a vote.
>
&g
