[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17781010#comment-17781010
]
Claude Warren commented on CASSANDRA-18301:
-------------------------------------------
I think there are 2 separate issues here: the sstables format and the schema
format.
When I was working on CASSANDRA-8928 (downgrade sstables) the easy part was to
write the sstable. My strategy was if downgrading from 4 to 3 write the
earliest v3 sstable format that was still supported. Then the v3 servers could
apply changes as they would normally for an upgrade.
The hard part was the schema format. Between 3 and 4 several columns were
added to system tables and an extra field added to compaction info (I think).
Now it seems from CASSANDRA-18934 that there is a similar issue between 4 and
5.
So I think we need to be very clear if we are talking about sstables downgrades
or schema table downgrades.
I am not certain I see the benefit of downgrading sstables without accounting
for schema table definitions as well.
> Let the user select the sstable version to write
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-18301
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18301
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Local/Config, Local/SSTable
> Reporter: Jacek Lewandowski
> Assignee: Jacek Lewandowski
> Priority: Normal
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
