My point is MVCC should be redone from scratch without messing with other pars of code.
Currently it's spaghetti unmaintanable code. пт, 7 февр. 2020 г. в 14:52, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com>: > My humble opinion. > > We need MVCC because it is our way to SQL transactions. SQL is a very > important user API (as you might know there is an active work on new > SQL engine). Fair SQL transactions is a supplementary and quite needed > feature, users ask about it on user list. I believe it is a future of > Ignite. > > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > > пт, 7 февр. 2020 г. в 13:23, Seliverstov Igor <gvvinbl...@gmail.com>: > > > > Note that someone uses it > > > > Main problem is a recovery process when persistence enabled and a > cluster have more than one node. > > > > It is a problem even for regular transactional caches, the main > difference - MVCC detects any inconsistencies while regular transactional > caches may ignore it without any notification > > > > In other cases it works fine and provides promised guaranties. > > > > Of course there are several minor issues like performance ones, but > there is a plan how to solve them (I could share it if anybody is curious) > > > > My opinion we should solve consistency issues first and finalize MVCC > after that. > > > > Until that it’s OK to have it as experimental feature. > > > > Regards, > > Igor > > > > > 6 февр. 2020 г., в 21:25, Alexei Scherbakov < > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > > > > > I'm strongly support removal of MVCC from master. > > > > > > At the current state it bloats code base and should be reworked from > > > scratch using separate code base. > > > > > > чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 19:45, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> Hello! > > >> > > >> Please keep in mind that you need to create a separate proposal voting > > >> thread if you really like it to count. I wonder if Dmitry Pavlov can > help > > >> us with the procedure. > > >> > > >> Otherwise, I think it makes total sense to restrict MVCC clusters to > only > > >> have MVCC caches or REPLICATED TRANSACTIONAL caches (are they > compatible in > > >> our current implementation) and no ATOMIC caches at all. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> -- > > >> Ilya Kasnacheev > > >> > > >> > > >> чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 19:41, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > > >> > > >>> Ilya, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 1. MVCC support requires code maintenance for other developed > features > > >>> even if has not used and disabled. Currently, we've got an x2 level > of > > >>> difficulty for implementation of new features. > > >>> > > >>> 2. It would be much easy to develop and support clusters with > > >>> mvcc-caches only rather than have a mixed configuration. With this > > >>> option we can dramatically reduce the amount of codebase removing > from > > >>> mvcc-branch local, atomic, tx caches. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> So, I'm +1 to remove it from the master branch and mark the current > > >>> API with @IgniteExperimental. > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:29, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hello! > > >>>> > > >>>> Why would we drop MVCC!? > > >>>> > > >>>> I can totally imagine a scenario where a large Ignite user surfaces > > >> with > > >>>> fixes for MVCC mode, if it is kept as an experimental feature. Then > > >> maybe > > >>>> it will graduate to beta some time in future. > > >>>> > > >>>> If it does too much strain on the TC, let's discuss that, but I > don't > > >>>> remember problems with TC load lately, so maybe this is a moot > point. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Ilya Kasnacheev > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 15:27, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > >>>> > > >>>>>> By the way, is there any reason to have this code in the master > > >>> branch > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I support removal MVCC from master. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 6 февр. 2020 г., в 15:26, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > > >> написал(а): > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> By the way, is there any reason to have this code in the master > > >>>>>> branch? It seems feature is in unsupportable state and just wastes > > >> TC > > >>>>>> time and our effort to support MVCC related tests. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:44 PM Alexey Goncharuk > > >>>>>> <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Agree, let's mark MVCC experimental. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Stephen, the annotation serves as an additional > > >> documentation-style > > >>>>> marker. > > >>>>>>> For now there are no compile-time warnings when the API is used. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 14:35, Stephen Darlington < > > >>>>>>> stephen.darling...@gridgain.com>: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Yes! I’ve already seen people try to use this without awareness > > >>> that > > >>>>> it’s > > >>>>>>>> not production ready. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> What happens with the annotation, incidentally? Is it just in > the > > >>>>>>>> documentation or do you get a compile-time warning? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:32, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Should we mark MVCC feature with the new @IgniteExperimental? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> We explicitly note users that MVCC has beta status, for now [1] > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Beta version of Transactional SQL and MVCC > > >>>>>>>>>> In Ignite v2.7, Transactional SQL and MVCC are released as > beta > > >>>>>>>> versions to allow users to experiment and share feedback. > > >>>>>>>>>> This version of Transactional SQL and MVCC should not be > > >>> considered > > >>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> production. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> [1] > > >>>>> > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/multiversion-concurrency-control > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > -- Best regards, Alexei Scherbakov
