[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10690?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15011203#comment-15011203
]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-10690:
-----------------------------------------------
Pragmatically, in this one particular case, yes. We've done it multiple times
before on my memory (.1 of 2.0 and/or 2.1, maybe even later in the game) where
going by the rules we shouldn't have.
Which is to say that I'm fine with committing to 3.0.1/3.1 if we are putting
this in 3.x at all (the sooner the change is visible, the better).
But later (starting with 3.3? 3.5?) - once we stabilise, we should absolutely
not break the rule.
FWIW, we have *some* freedom now with default interface method in Java 8, so
that's something.
> Remove unclear indexes() method from 2ndary index API
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10690
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10690
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Local Write-Read Paths
> Reporter: Tyler Hobbs
> Fix For: 3.2
>
>
> The new secondary index API does not notify indexes of single-row or slice
> deletions unless specific columns are deleted. I believe the problem is that
> in {{SecondaryIndexManager.newUpdateTransaction()}}, we skip indexes unless
> {{index.indexes(update.columns())}}. When no columns are specified in the
> the deletion, {{update.columns()}} is empty, which causes all indexes to be
> skipped.
> I think the correct fix is to do something like this in the
> {{ModificationStatement}} constructor:
> {code}
> if (type == StatementType.DELETE && modifiedColumns.isEmpty())
> modifiedColumns = cfm.partitionColumns();
> {code}
> However, I'm not sure if that may have unintended side-effects. What do you
> think, [~slebresne]?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
