Paulo, what you propose with the yaml seems different from default to *correctness*. It means to me that we are forcing the user to choose between *correctness *and *performance*. Most of us have a good understanding of the problem and it is a hard choice for us. I imagine that most of the users do not fully understand LWTs and will not know what to choose. Some might not even use LWTs and will suddenly be forced to make a choice that they do not understand. It does not feel right to me to push them to make that choice.
I also agree with Benedict and Mick that it is a risky thing to do. something that can bring a cluster down upon an unprepared user. I do not think that it will be the case (feel free to correct me Benedict). The impact will probably be an increase in the number of write/read timeouts for the LWTs read/writes. For a heavy load that would cause the services depending on those queries to become unreliable. On the other hand the impact of the current problem is that we can hit some correctness issue without even knowing it. We need to choose between two imperfect solutions and we have some difficulties to agree on which one to choose. Benedict suggested that Sylvain and I made the choice. Sylvain did not want to make the final call. I chose correctness. If it is a problem and people prefer to vote. It is perfectly fine for me too :-) I just want us to move forward. On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think the keyword there is "normally" - if we can't say _certainly_, > > then this is probably an unsafe change to make. > > > > I can imagine any number of hacky upgrade processes that would be > > dangerous with this change. > > > > > I agree. We just don't know what users are doing, this is risky. > > IMO the same applies to a performance degradation, i.e. something that can > bring a cluster down upon an unprepared user. Despite our best efforts with > NEWS.txt we should still look after such users. IMHO the imperfection of > LWTs on past branches we have to carry. I'm well aware this is easier said > than done, even for far simpler changes. Having the flag there to switch to > "correct LWT" is still a huge win for users. >
