[ 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: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org