Agreed. In any case, a patch <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16807> is now available.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 3:32 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
