Broken downgrading can be fixed (I think) by modifying the
SearializationHeader.toHeader() method where it currently throws an
UnknownColumnException. If we can, instead of throwing the exception,
create a dropped column for the unexpected column then I think the code
will work.
I realise that to
>
> Can somebody explain to me what is so burdensome, that we seem to be
> spending longer debating it than it would take to implement the necessary
> changes?
I believe that we all agree on the outcome. Everybody wants
downgradability. The issue is on the path to get there.
As far as I am conce
Pull request https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/1950/files is an
attempt to move the boilerplate coding from the script files into a single
maintainable file.
This change does 4 things:
1. Moves the standard boiler plate from the standard scripts into a
single maintainable script to b
Forget downgradeability for a moment: we should not be breaking format compatibility without good reason. Bumping a major version isn’t enough of a reason. Can somebody explain to me why this is being fought tooth and nail, when the work involved is absolutely minimal?Regarding tests: what more do
Running upgrade tests backwards is great idea which does not require extra
work.
For stats metadata it already supports writing in previous serialization
version
We need a small fix in compression metadata and that's it.
A flag with the write format version is probably LHF.
Maybe let's try, we
You also need to remove the system.local.broadcast_port column as that does
not exist in the earlier version and when the earlier version attempts to
read it the code throws an UnknownColumnException.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:27 AM Jacek Lewandowski <
lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Runni
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:57 AM Benedict wrote:
> Can somebody explain to me why this is being fought tooth and nail, when
> the work involved is absolutely minimal?
>
>
I don't know how each individual has been thinking about this, but it seems
to me just looking at all the tasks that at least
I don’t think there’s anything about a new format that requires a version bump, but I could be missing something.We have to have a switch to enable tries already don’t we? I’m pretty sure we haven’t talked about switching the default format?On 23 Feb 2023, at 12:12, Henrik Ingo wrote:On Thu, Feb
Right. So I'm speculating everyone else who worked on a patch that breaks
compatibility has been working under the mindset "I'll just put this behind
the same switch". Or something more vague / even less correct, such as
assuming that tries would become the default immediately.
At least in my mind
Either way, it feels like this has become much more of a big deal than it needed to.I would prefer the pending patches to avoid breaking compatibility, as I think they can do it easily. But, if we agree to block release until we can double back to fix it with versioned writing (which I agree with J
10 matches
Mail list logo
