And it seems that the main fix for the https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18291 is to change the order of updating the schema version in the system.local table. Before the patch, it was at the beginning of the Schema::mergeAndUpdateVersion(), vs. with the patch, it is moved to the end of the method.. Jacek - can you elaborate a little more why the order matters? I am just wondering it there might be race conditions that cause the schema disagreement.
Cheng On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:13 AM Cheng Wang <che...@netflix.com> wrote: > Thanks Jacek, > > In our C* version 4.1.1.1 we have your change > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17044 > However, I noticed that you had another fix > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18291 that we didn't pick > up yet. > Do you think it might be the cause? Could you elaborate a little more on > the CASSANDRA-18291? > > Thanks > Cheng > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 8:02 AM Jacek Lewandowski < > lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Please cc me when you create a ticket >> >> pon., 1 kwi 2024, 14:13 użytkownik Bowen Song via dev < >> dev@cassandra.apache.org> napisał: >> >>> It sounds worthy of a Jira ticket. >>> >>> On 01/04/2024 06:23, Cheng Wang via dev wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I have recently encountered a problem concerning schema disagreement >>> > in Cassandra 4.1. It appears that the schema versions do not reconcile >>> > as expected. >>> > >>> > The issue can be reproduced by following these steps: >>> > - Disable the gossip in Node A. >>> > - Make a schema change in Node B, such as creating a new table. >>> > - Re-enable the gossip in Node A. >>> > >>> > My expectation was that the schema versions would eventually >>> > reconcile. However, in Cassandra 4.1, it seems that reconciliation >>> > hangs indefinitely unless I reboot the node. Interestingly, when >>> > performing the same steps in Cassandra 3.0, the schema version >>> > synchronizes within about a minute. >>> > >>> > Has anyone else experienced this issue with Cassandra 4.x? It appears >>> > to me that this could be a regression in the 4.x series. >>> > >>> > Any insights or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Cheng >>> >>
