> what’s the motivation for removal? One thing that also makes it better to remove is that this adds the ABA problem into our tables, where as removing it fixes that…
If you create a table “foo”, drop it, then recreate “foo”, the 2 “foo” tables share the same tableId, which can trick things to think they are the same… When the table ID was random and could conflict on different nodes, this feature was useful to make sure to avoid such an issue, but with TCM that problem is solved, so this just adds more complexity as the “real” ID of a table is (TableId, Epoch)… and that… is annoying... > On Jul 30, 2024, at 3:47 PM, Jordan West <jorda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Understood. Nits aside I have no objection to your plan. > > Jordan > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 15:42 Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com > <mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> I think the main motivation for ignoring the YAML option and removing down >> the line is that we probably never would have created it if TCM existed at >> that point of creation. I'd liken it to what we did w/ some >> no-longer-relevant options for the batch commit log. >> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 5:19 PM Jordan West <jorda...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jorda...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Generally no disagreement but more of a curiosity: what’s the motivation >>> for removal? Just that it’s not needed? Otherwise it’s relatively cheap and >>> DDL aren’t high throughput (or at least shouldn’t be since we can only deal >>> with so many tables) >>> >>> Jordan >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 15:04 Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> To summarize all this noise I've created, the plan would be... >>>> >>>> 1.) Leave CQL WITH id intact. >>>> 2.) Deprecate and WARN on use_deterministic_table_id in 5.0.x. >>>> 3.) Ignore and WARN on use_deterministic_table_id in 5.1. >>>> 4.) Profit >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> No intention of touching WITH id in CQL >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 4:10 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> To clarify, my plan was to deprecate in Config/JMX and ignore it, not >>>>>> remove it entirely so it breaks existing YAMLs and JMX clients. >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be fine, if I'm reading the upgrade notes correctly, as no >>>>>> table or view creation operations will be allowed on 5.1 nodes until >>>>>> upgrade is complete and the CMS has been initialized. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 3:54 PM J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> +1 to deprecate it. What does removing it buy us? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 3:52 PM, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:dcapw...@apple.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Users can provide ids and TCM can manage to make them safe, so agree >>>>>>>> we don’t really need the feature anymore. I am fine with deprecating >>>>>>>> the feature, but removing would be a breaking change for anyone that >>>>>>>> had that config in place, so not a fan of breaking the config >>>>>>>> interface. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 1:38 PM, Caleb Rackliffe >>>>>>>>> <calebrackli...@gmail.com <mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose removing deterministic table IDs for new user >>>>>>>>> tables and views in trunk. With TCM in place, it looks like the >>>>>>>>> reason we added use_deterministic_table_id, concurrent table >>>>>>>>> creations, is no longer a concern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? Objections? >>>>>>>>
