[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14556211#comment-14556211
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-7925:
---------------------------------------------
bq. It's currently used for paxos.
Right, and that's not a problem for Paxos.
bq. Also, I imagine we will still allow the clients to specify timestamps (esp
for thrift) in CASSANDRA-7919
We certainly will want to preserve backward compatibility (both for thrift and
CQL), but doing so mean that we will need to guarantee to 2 updates with the
same (user provided) timestamp actually *do* conflict, and this no matter what
node the update hits. So in fact, we'll probably have to hardcode a LSB to use
for all update with user provided timestamp. In any case, I think anticipating
problems for CASSANDRA-7919 is a bit premature. It's not like we can't change
this if we really need to later.
In general, I'd prefer keeping it to a fixed LSB for a given process if
possible: it's a tad simpler, better for compression and a bit closer to the
timeuuid RFC imo. And as of now, I think that's good enough.
> TimeUUID LSB should be unique per process, not just per machine
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7925
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7925
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Peter Mädel
> Assignee: T Jake Luciani
> Fix For: 2.2.x
>
> Attachments: cassandra-uuidgen.patch
>
>
> as pointed out in
> [CASSANDRA-7919|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7919?focusedCommentId=14132529&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14132529]
> lsb collisions are also possible serverside.
> a sufficient solution would be to include references to pid and classloader
> within lsb.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
