> With the proposal hitting the one-month mark, the contributors are interested
> in gauging the developer community's response to the proposal.
I support this proposal. From what I can understand, this proposal
moves us towards having the building blocks we need to correctly
deliver some of the
* Hi all,After calling several times for a broader discussion of goals and
tradeoffs around transaction management in the CEP-15 thread, I’ve put
together a short analysis to kick that off.Here is a table that summarizes
the state of the art for distributed transactions that offer
serializability,
I'll read more of this in a bit, I want to make sure I fully digest it
before commenting on the rest, but this block here deserves a few words:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> After putting the above together it seems to
> me that the two main areas of tradeoff are, 1. Is
1. Is it worth giving up local latencies to get full global consistency? Most
LWT use cases use
LOCAL_SERIAL.
This isn’t a tradeoff that needs to be made. There’s nothing about Accord that
prevents performing consensus in one DC and replicating the writes to others.
That’s not in scope for the
