Understood. Nits aside I have no objection to your plan. Jordan
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 15:42 Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the main motivation for ignoring the YAML option and removing > down the line is that we probably never would have created it if TCM > existed at that point of creation. I'd liken it to what we did w/ some > no-longer-relevant options for the batch commit log. > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 5:19 PM Jordan West <jorda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Generally no disagreement but more of a curiosity: what’s the motivation >> for removal? Just that it’s not needed? Otherwise it’s relatively cheap and >> DDL aren’t high throughput (or at least shouldn’t be since we can only deal >> with so many tables) >> >> Jordan >> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 15:04 Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> To summarize all this noise I've created, the plan would be... >>> >>> 1.) Leave CQL WITH id intact. >>> 2.) Deprecate and WARN on *use_deterministic_table_id *in 5.0.x. >>> 3.) Ignore and WARN on *use_deterministic_table_id *in 5.1. >>> 4.) Profit >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM Caleb Rackliffe < >>> calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> No intention of touching WITH id in CQL >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 4:10 PM Caleb Rackliffe < >>>> calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To clarify, my plan was to deprecate in Config/JMX and ignore it, not >>>>> remove it entirely so it breaks existing YAMLs and JMX clients. >>>>> >>>>> This should be fine, if I'm reading the upgrade notes correctly, as no >>>>> table or view creation operations will be allowed on 5.1 nodes until >>>>> upgrade is complete and the CMS has been initialized. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 3:54 PM J. D. Jordan < >>>>> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 to deprecate it. What does removing it buy us? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 3:52 PM, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Users can provide ids and TCM can manage to make them safe, so agree >>>>>> we don’t really need the feature anymore. I am fine with deprecating the >>>>>> feature, but removing would be a breaking change for anyone that had that >>>>>> config in place, so not a fan of breaking the config interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 1:38 PM, Caleb Rackliffe < >>>>>> calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose removing deterministic table IDs for new *user* >>>>>> tables and views in trunk. With TCM in place, it looks like the reason we >>>>>> added *use_deterministic_table_id*, concurrent table creations, is >>>>>> no longer a concern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Objections? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
