4.0 should also fail startup (very early) if it still sees any non-migrated
tables, probably.
—
AY
On 19 September 2017 at 18:35:11, J. D. Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. +1 for adding a "DROP COMPACT STORAGE" option in
3.x and then not allowing it to b
Thanks for the clarification. +1 for adding a "DROP COMPACT STORAGE" option in
3.x and then not allowing it to be specified in 4.0.
On Sep 19, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Alex P wrote:
>> If we provide a way to drop the flag, but still access the data, I think
>> that is fine and perfectly reasonable.
> If we provide a way to drop the flag, but still access the data, I think that
> is fine and perfectly reasonable. If the proposal here is that users who
> have data in COMPACT STORAGE tables have no way to upgrade to 4.0 and still
> access that data without exporting it to a brand new table,
I think that all the work to support Compact Storage tables from CQL seems like
wasted effort if we are going to tell people “just kidding, you have to migrate
all your data”. I do not think supporting “COMPACT STORAGE” as a table option
matters one way or the other. But I do think being able
