[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15320968#comment-15320968
]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-7622:
----------------------------------------------
bq. That certainly doesn't prevent us for supporting SHOW VARIABLES as
syntactic sugar for the equivalent select statement. This might even make sense
as a cqlsh thing (rather than a CQL one).
Fair enough. I'm just questioning if there are any important use cases outside
of configuration that we actually need a generalized virtual table mechanism at
all. If we don't, then we might as well just add special purpose
{{SHOW}}/{{SET}} only and call it a day. If we do, then {{SHOW}}/{{SET}} in
cqlsh on top of a virtual table wfm.
> Implement virtual tables
> ------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Assignee: Jeff Jirsa
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> There are a variety of reasons to want virtual tables, which would be any
> table that would be backed by an API, rather than data explicitly managed and
> stored as sstables.
> One possible use case would be to expose JMX data through CQL as a
> resurrection of CASSANDRA-3527.
> Another is a more general framework to implement the ability to expose yaml
> configuration information. So it would be an alternate approach to
> CASSANDRA-7370.
> A possible implementation would be in terms of CASSANDRA-7443, but I am not
> presupposing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
