>
> In my opinion we should be moving towards specifying quorums on a
> per-table basis for reads and writes, so that clients do not specify their
> consistency levels.
This stood out to me: I'm a strong +1 on this. The less clients have to
know about their powerful and complex distributed databas
Thank you, Abi! And thanks to Stefan and Paulo for mentoring!
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:43 AM Paulo Motta wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just a heads up to the community that we're wrapping up the Google Summer
> of Code project this year.
>
> Abi Palagashvili worked with us in the last couple of m
Hi everyone,
Just a heads up to the community that we're wrapping up the Google Summer
of Code project this year.
Abi Palagashvili worked with us in the last couple of months to provide TTL
support to nodetool snapshots on CASSANDRA-16789 <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16789>,
> My initial testing suggestedit was not required (when the new DC is not
> serving reads).
The problem is that today there’s no way to reliably exclude the new DC from
serving reads, that I know of? If you can, then yes you would only need to
ensure repair were run prior to activating reads fr
Many thanks for this detailed response Benedict. I look forward to seeing the
forthcoming proposals in relation to schema change safety when LWTs are in use.
We have been following almost the scale-by-one workaround you described - I am
grateful for the additional validation. The only divergence
Hello and welcome!
So this is a really complicated topic, unfortunately, but the simple answer is
that as currently formulated this work won’t address this particular case. The
slightly longer answer is that this problem will be a thing of the past soon
either way - there’s work incoming to add
+1
> On 19 Aug 2021, at 17:10, Branimir Lambov wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am proposing the CEP-11 (Pluggable memtable implementations) for adoption
>
> Discussion thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rb5e950f882196764744c31bc3c13dfbf0603cb9f8bc2f6cfb976d285%40%3Cdev.cassandra.a
On 2021/08/20 07:07:00, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> > e.g. mixing SERIAL with LOCAL_SERIAL, which is not safe unless you
> > perform a really intricate dance, but we can distinguish this case from
> > real bugs.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Benedict, possibly off-topic, but are there any plans or thoughts a
> e.g. mixing SERIAL with LOCAL_SERIAL, which is not safe unless you
> perform a really intricate dance, but we can distinguish this case from
> real bugs.
>
>
>
Benedict, possibly off-topic, but are there any plans or thoughts around
adding EACH_SERIAL ?
A number of users have enquired about th
