> If we have a path that resolves the issue and also maintains full > compatibility for this (semi- / reluctantly-accessible) interface, that would > seem ideal. Interested to learn more about the drawbacks to that approach.
My thinking here was that people who might have a binary dependency on this interface have to recompile their code, they may as well change 2 lines by adding a call to from the new method with `requestTime.startedAtNanos()`. I am not in a strong opposition to merging it though. If there is general agreement that this is the best way, let's do this: I do not see any drawbacks in terms of performance or otherwise. If we decide to move forward with, it, the patch is up [1]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19811 On Wed, Jul 31, 2024, at 11:24 PM, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > Sorry to veer off from a vote in a vote thread. > > @Alex, can you say more about this statement: > > > "I think I would prefer to not introduce the change I have proposed (the > > one that would bring back non-binary compatibility)." > > If we have a path that resolves the issue and also maintains full > compatibility for this (semi- / reluctantly-accessible) interface, that would > seem ideal. Interested to learn more about the drawbacks to that approach. > > Regarding the value of C-19534 I'm happy to attest to the fact that it > addresses severe metastable failure modes in clusters under heavy traffic on > the verge of tipping. Jon Haddad's independent testing validated this as > discussed on the ticket as well: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19534 > > Last, @Tommy this is a great catch and I'm glad you raised it. Thanks for > watching so closely and appreciate you bringing it to everyone's attention. > > – Scott > >> On Jul 31, 2024, at 1:05 PM, Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> +1 to proceeding with a simple upgrade note in NEWS >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 12:50 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >>> __ >>>> Unfortunately, I can not immediately see a good way to provide the >>>> critical bugfix of CASSANDRA-19534 >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19534>, affecting all >>>> Cassandra users, without making at least some change in this API. >>>> >>>> I personally think that this method is very tightly coupled to the >>>> implementation to expose it via -D. If anyone using it could provide some >>>> context about why it is an important part of API, it would be give some >>>> useful context. >>> Nobody stepping up to engage on the technical piece of this? Unless / until >>> somebody does, Alex' argument holds the most weight as the expert with >>> what's going on IMO. >>> >>> The question we're facing is - when we find a defect that requires a change >>> in a public facing API, which of the following 2 is more important: >>> 1. Keeping the API stable >>> 2. Having the defect resolved >>> Obviously this will be case-by-case. What CASSANDRA-19534 addresses: >>>> When a node is under pressure, hundreds of thousands of requests can show >>>> up in the native transport queue, and it looks like it can take way longer >>>> to timeout than is configured. >>>> ... >>>> After stopping the load test altogether, it took nearly a minute before >>>> the requests were no longer queued. >>> I believe our priority here should be having this defect resolved. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Jordan West wrote: >>>> I would make the case that loss of availability / significant performance >>>> issue, regardless of the amount of time it has existed for, is worth >>>> fixing on the branches that are widely deployed by the community. >>>> Especially when weighed against a loosely defined public interface issue. >>>> >>>> The queuing issue has been a persistent problem (like you said 10 years) >>>> and I regularly (approx once every 1-2 weeks) have to tell my customers >>>> “we either have to wait for Cassandra to clear the queues or do a rolling >>>> restart to fix it” both which come at a cost during an incident where a >>>> client overloaded the DB and the impact is severe or business impacting. >>>> Especially for customers doing LWTs or using non-standard RFs which are >>>> also more prevalent in my experience than an external implementation of >>>> QueryHandler. >>>> >>>> While not data loss, I would argue this is a critical bug and if we did >>>> find a data loss issue dormant for 10 years (which has happened in the >>>> past) we would fix it as soon as it was found and a patch was made >>>> available on all actively maintained versions. >>>> >>>> Jordan >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:30 Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It’s a 10 year old flaw in an 18 month old branch. Why does it need to go >>>>> into 4.1, it’s not a regression and it clearly breaks compatibility? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 8:52 AM, Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch fixes a long standing issue that's the root cause of >>>>>> availability failures. Even though folks can specify a custom query >>>>>> handler with the -D flag, the number of users impacted by this is going >>>>>> to be incredibly small. On the other hand, the fix helps every single >>>>>> user of 4.1 that puts too much pressure on the cluster, which happens >>>>>> fairly regularly. >>>>>> >>>>>> My POV is that it's a fairly weak argument that this is a public >>>>>> interface, but I don't consider it worth debating whether it is or not, >>>>>> because even if it is, this improves stability of the database for all >>>>>> users, so it's worth going in. Let's not be dogmatic about fixes that >>>>>> help 99% of users because an incredibly small number that actually >>>>>> implement a custom query handler will need to make a trivial update in >>>>>> order to use the latest 4.1.6 dependency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:09 AM J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given we allow a pluggable query handler implementation to be specified >>>>>>> for the server with a -D during startup. So I would consider the query >>>>>>> handler one of our public interfaces. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 9:35 AM, Alex Petrov <al...@coffeenco.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Tommy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for spotting this and bringing this to community's attention. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe our primary interfaces are native and internode protocol, >>>>>>>> and CLI tools. Most interfaces are used to to abstract implementations >>>>>>>> internally. Few interfaces, such as DataType, Partitioner, and >>>>>>>> Triggers can be depended upon by external tools using Cassandra as a >>>>>>>> library. There is no official way to plug in a QueryHandler, so I did >>>>>>>> not consider it to be a part of our public API. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From [1]: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > These considerations are especially important for public APIs, >>>>>>>> > including CQL, virtual tables, JMX, yaml, system properties, etc. >>>>>>>> > Any planned additions must be carefully considered in the context of >>>>>>>> > any existing APIs. Where possible the approach of any existing API >>>>>>>> > should be followed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe we should have an exhaustive list of public APIs, and explicitly >>>>>>>> mention that native and internode protocols are included, alongside >>>>>>>> with nodetool command API and output, but also which >>>>>>>> classes/interfaces specifically should be evolved with care. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://cassandra.apache.org/_/development/index.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, at 10:56 AM, Tommy Stendahl via dev wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a change in the QueryHandler interface introduced by >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19534 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we allow changes such changes between 4.1.5 and 4.1.6? >>>>>>>>> CASSANDRA-19534 looks like a very good change so maybe there is an >>>>>>>>> exception in this case? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Tommy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> *From*: Brandon Williams <brandonwilli...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:brandon%20williams%20%3cbrandonwilli...@apache.org%3e>> >>>>>>>>> *Reply-To*: dev@cassandra.apache.org >>>>>>>>> *To*: dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev%20%3c...@cassandra.apache.org%3e>> >>>>>>>>> *Subject*: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.6 >>>>>>>>> *Date*: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 09:36:04 -0500 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.1.6 for release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sha1: b662744af59f3a3dfbfeb7314e29fecb93abfd80 >>>>>>>>> Git: >>>>>>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fcassandra%2Ftree%2F4.1.6-tentative&data=05%7C02%7Ctommy.stendahl%40ericsson.com%7C30a819344e48491e561908dcafdbddf4%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638578606055937277%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BWaJmvRTXvrMh%2FFBRzt%2FOost%2Bn6xAkgePP2ObtmTnbY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maven Artifacts: >>>>>>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapachecassandra-1339%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fcassandra%2Fcassandra-all%2F4.1.6%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctommy.stendahl%40ericsson.com%7C30a819344e48491e561908dcafdbddf4%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638578606055947610%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2baa1fUTwQqDpPtFAdv%2FFU6sqax3LSkKEm%2FUdbcHsbE%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and >>>>>>>>> repositories, are available here: >>>>>>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Fcassandra%2F4.1.6%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctommy.stendahl%40ericsson.com%7C30a819344e48491e561908dcafdbddf4%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638578606055951106%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9FUMT0F7c%2B0y7NbvgN9fQrSNgNO2YGfKMwk9ajy2MKA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who >>>>>>>>> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are >>>>>>>>> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding >>>>>>>>> +1s and no -1's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]: CHANGES.txt: >>>>>>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fcassandra%2Fblob%2F4.1.6-tentative%2FCHANGES.txt&data=05%7C02%7Ctommy.stendahl%40ericsson.com%7C30a819344e48491e561908dcafdbddf4%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638578606055954173%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3u1LazTB3GixsR7MEwxT%2ByqMrnwHjBL72r8Vy0C1HhE%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2]: NEWS.txt: >>>>>>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fcassandra%2Fblob%2F4.1.6-tentative%2FNEWS.txt&data=05%7C02%7Ctommy.stendahl%40ericsson.com%7C30a819344e48491e561908dcafdbddf4%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638578606055957376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4TROx5HB5vJuLTYNoAqMx2A3%2FUUtZ3Edr6aa4JVvHEA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>>> Brandon >>>>>>>> >>> >
