+
| 1 | opl | d4815800-2d8d-11e0-82e0-3f484de45426 |
+---+-+--+
Looks like there is something weird happening when creating the table.
- Pierre
-Original Message-
From: Kais Ahmed [mailto:k...@neteck-fr.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:30 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
al Message-
From: Kais Ahmed [mailto:k...@neteck-fr.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:30 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Cassandra 1.2
Hi all,
I create a table in cassandra 1.2, and makes two queries,
Hi all,
I create a table in cassandra 1.2, and makes two queries, the second
query gives
me a false result, is this normal behavior?
--
[cqlsh 2.3.0 | Cassandra 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
All right. With no dissenting opinions, let's make this the new plan of record.
I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4734 for
the protocol change; let's get that into beta2 and take it from there.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
>
> The vnod
+1
The vnode troubleshooting process has been rough, so I'm all for more
testing there.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> We are more or less on track for the promised late October 1.2 release
> [1] but I'm starting to think we should expand the scope of 1.2 a bit
> to ge
+1
26 sep 2012 kl. 15:56 skrev Sylvain Lebresne :
> +1
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> We are more or less on track for the promised late October 1.2 release
>> [1] but I'm starting to think we should expand the scope of 1.2 a bit
>> to get cql3 and the correspondin
+1
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> We are more or less on track for the promised late October 1.2 release
> [1] but I'm starting to think we should expand the scope of 1.2 a bit
> to get cql3 and the corresponding binary protocol truly "right."
>
> Specifically,
> 1) We'd
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> 2) The binary protocol only really has a Java implementation so far.
> Having the time to flesh out the Python implementation would be a good
> sanity check before we commit to protocol stability.
>
Just to clarify, the Python implementat
