why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the
actual use case for that.
> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi <hors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC.
>
> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The
> serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine
> already.
>
> If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as
> they might be setting a 15+ year ttl.
>
> regards,
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed
>> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime
>> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on
>> 3.0+
>>
>> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce
>> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we
>> figure a long term solution.
>>
>> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>:
>>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking
>> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was
>> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you
>> get an assertion error that fails the query.
>>>
>>> -Jeremiah
>>>
>>>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra <anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jeremiah,
>>>> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it
>> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and
>> data is lost:
>>>> create table test(name text primary key,age int);
>>>> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 630720000;
>>>> select * from test where name='test_20yrs';
>>>>
>>>> name | age
>>>> ------+-----
>>>>
>>>> (0 rows)
>>>>
>>>> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL
>> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query]
>> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (630720000)"
>>>> ThanksAnuj
>>>> On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan <
>> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully
>> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like
>> you get an error client side.
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremiah
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra <anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating
>> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092
>> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP
>> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to
>> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no
>> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical
>> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some
>> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all
>> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my
>> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for
>> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Anuj
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
