The idea is interesting. I think it would help to have more concrete examples. It's a bit sparse at the moment, and I have a hard time getting on board with new features where the main selling point is Extensibility over the value they provide on their own.
I think it would help a lot if we knew what types of constraints, besides the size check, you were thinking of adding. Jon On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:27 PM Bernardo Botella < conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: > Yes, that is correct. This particular behavior will need CEP-24 in order > to work reliably. But, if my understanding is correct, that statement holds > true for the entirety of Guardrails, and not only for this particular > feature. > > On Jun 3, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan < > stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote: > > That would work reliably in case there is no way how to misconfigure > guardrails in the cluster. What if you set a guardrail on one node but you > don’t set it (or set it differently) on the other? If it is configured > differently and you want to check the guardrails if constraints do not > violate them, then your query might fail or not based on what node is hit. > > I guess that guardrails would need to start to be transactional to be sure > this is avoided and guardrails are indeed same everywhere (CEP-24 thread > sent recently here in ML). > > > > *From: *Bernardo Botella <conta...@bernardobotella.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 June 2024 at 00:31 > *To: *dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > *Cc: *Miklosovic, Stefan <stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework > You don't often get email from conta...@bernardobotella.com. Learn why > this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > *EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION when clicking links or attachments * > > > > Basically, I am trying to protect the limits set by the operator against > misconfigured schemas from the customers. > > I see the guardrails as a safety limit added by the operator, setting the > limits within the customers owning the actual schema (and their > constraints) can operate. With that vision, if a customer tries to “ignore” > the actual limits set by the operator by adding more relaxed constraints, > it gets a nice message saying that “that is not allowed for the cluster, > please contact your admin". > > > > > On Jun 3, 2024, at 2:51 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan via dev < > dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: > > You wrote in the CEP: > > As we mentioned in the motivation section, we currently have some > guardrails for columns size in place which can be extended for other data > types. > Those guardrails will take preference over the defined constraints in the > schema, and a SCHEMA ALTER adding constraints that break the limits defined > by the guardrails framework will fail. > If the guardrails themselves are modified, operator should get a warning > mentioning that there are schemas with offending constraints. > > I think that this should be other way around. Guardrails should kick in > when there are no constraints and they would be overridden by table schema. > That way, there is always a “default” in terms of guardrails (which one can > turn off on demand / change) but you can override it by table alternation. > > Basically, what is in schema should win regardless of how guardrails are > configured. They don’t matter when a constraint is explicitly specified in > a schema. It should take the defaults in guardrails if there are any and no > constraint is specified on schema level. > > What is your motivation to do it like you suggested? > > > *From: *Bernardo Botella <conta...@bernardobotella.com> > *Date: *Friday, 31 May 2024 at 23:24 > *To: *dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > *Subject: *[DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework > You don't often get email from conta...@bernardobotella.com. Learn why > this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > *EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION when clicking links or attachments * > > > Hello everyone, > > I am proposing this CEP: > CEP-42: Constraints Framework - CASSANDRA - Apache Software Foundation > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > cwiki.apache.org > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > <favicon.ico> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-42%3A+Constraints+Framework> > > > And I’m looking for feedback from the community. > > Thanks a lot! > Bernardo > > >
