I discussed this with Caleb on slack, and these queries fail in both 3.x and 4.0. The difference is that in 4.0 they will receive an internal server error from the assertion, whereas on 3.x they will just receive an incorrect response that they will believe to be correct.
Given that this is incorrect behavior in both versions, I don't think we need to block 4.0 release for this, since this is nothing new. The only difference is in how the server is responding to it, and I would consider an error an improvement over being lied to, if forced to choose between the two. On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:12 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > tl;dr At best CASSANDRA-16807 means some queries that shouldn't fail do > fail, and at worst, this is a potentially dangerous consistency problem. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16807 > > I'm working on a solution either way, but I want to see if there are any > opinions out there on whether this should be included in 4.0.0 or bumped to > the first patch release. It's not strictly a regression from 3.x, although > the assertion that helped us identify it only exists in 4.0. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
