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
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
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
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
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
; >
> > 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
;>
>>> Batching and global consensus adds latency -- 100ms in the Calvin paper
>> and
>>> apparently about 50ms in FaunaDB. Glass half full: all transactions
>>> (including multi-partition updates) are equally performant in Calvin
>> since
>>>
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
> > 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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]
.
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
them to be niche. I expect
> > that a majority of our user base desire strict serializable isolation,
> and
> > certainly no less than serializable isolation, to augment the existing
> > weaker isolation offered by quorum reads and writes.
> >
> > I would tangenti
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
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
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,
&
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
.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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 "
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
@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
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’
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>>
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
>
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
92 matches
Mail list logo
