My preference is a NEWS.txt update and we reroll. On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So where does this leave us with this release? Get Alex's patch > committed and reroll, reroll with a NEWS entry, or... ? > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM Tommy Stendahl via dev > <dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > First, thanks everyone for considering this. I did not expect such a big > discussion form this, for me it was not such a big thing and a think > CASSANDRA-19534 is a very good improvement. > > > > If I have to recompile I would also update the code so I'm not sure I > see much benefit with compile time compatibility. What made me react and > raise the issue was the complete surprise that this would fail when I > upgraded my test cluster to 4.1.6. My expectation was that a change like > this would have been discussed or at least mentioned on the ML or Slack but > I can't remember seeing anything. A note in the NEWS-file would also have > made aware, I wouldn't have been super happy but I would have know what to > expect and what I had to do. > > > > ecaudit is one thing we do that use the QueryHandler interface but for > our internal we also use have a few implementations for query > tracing/logging and prioritize requests. I would say that the QueryHandler > interface together with the custom payload feature in the native protocol > is a powerful combination and I would not be surprised if this is used more > then you might expect. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > > Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.6 > > Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 08:26:42 -0500 > > > > @Tommy do you think? You brought the issue up, I am assuming because > you found the issue while trying to test ecaudit against the proposed > release and it broke the integration? > > As an active consumer of the interface what are your thoughts? > > > > On Aug 1, 2024, at 8:17 AM, Alex Petrov <al...@coffeenco.de> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, 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: > > > > Keeping the API stable > > 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> > > Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > To: dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
