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

Essentially this, although I think in practice we will need to track each partition’s timestamp separately (or optionally for reduced conflicts, each row or datum’s), and make them all part of the conditional application of the transaction - at least for strict-serializability. The alternative

[DISCUSS] CEP-16: Auth Plugin Support for CQLSH

Hi everyone. Are there any other thoughts or comments regarding the CEP-16: Auth Plugin Support for CQLSH proposal? - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-16%3A+Auth+Plugin+Support+for+CQLSH If not I'd like to send out a request for a vote. Thanks! Sent with ProtonMail S

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 blanks. But it looks to me like optimistic concurrency control for interactive transactions applied to Accord would leave you in a LWT-like situation under fairly light

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-16: Auth Plugin Support for CQLSH

Hi Brian, Thanks - the CEP looks good to me. We can move to vote. Could you please initiate it? Dinesh > On Sep 30, 2021, at 4:27 PM, bhouse99 wrote: > > Hi everyone. Are there any other thoughts or comments regarding the CEP-16: > Auth Plugin Support for CQLSH proposal? > > - > https://c