kfaraz commented on PR #18082: URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/18082#issuecomment-2969293910
Thanks for bringing this up, @maytasm ! We could have kept the column around but I felt like it would only add to the confusion, since the metadata in that table is relevant only for a supervisor and not for the datasource itself. But thinking on this some more, I think rolling upgrade itself would be a problem with the rename strategy. Say a new Overlord comes up and renames the column, while an Overlord which is still leader is trying to access the old column. So, I think we SHOULD NOT rename the column. cc: @jtuglu-netflix We will have to live with the slight mess in the code that is needed to handle both datasource and supervisor_id together. The dataSource column will essentially be a dummy column after this patch anyway. I wonder if we would have a similar problem with the proposed change in this patch. A leader Overlord which is still on old version would insert new records with supervisor_id = null (or default empty), while the new Overlord is still adding the primary key on `supervisor_id`. This would create trouble when adding a UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY on `supervisor_id`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
