yes，you are right. I will add this Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org>于2024年10月24日 周四下午4:42写道：
> The CEP should also mention that copying system tables or virtual tables > or materialized views and similar are not supported and an attempt of doing > so will error out. > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 7:16 AM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> > wrote: > >> Strong +1 to copy all options by default. This is intuitive to me. Then >> I would like to explicitly override any options of my choosing. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> OK，thank you for your suggestions ，I will revise the CEP and copy table >>> OPTIONS by default. >>> >>> Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com>于2024年10月23日 周三下午9:18写道： >>> >>>> Also strongly +1 to copying all the options. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 5:52 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm a very strong +1 to having the default functionality be to copy >>>>> *ALL* options. >>>>> >>>>> Intuitively, as a user, if I tell a software system to make a clone of >>>>> something I don't expect it to be shallow or a subset defined by some >>>>> external developer somewhere. I expect it to be a clone. >>>>> >>>>> Adding in some kind of "lean" mode or "column only" is fine if someone >>>>> can make a cogent argument around its inclusion. I don't personally see a >>>>> use-case for it right now but definitely open to being educated. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024, at 3:03 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: >>>>> >>>>> options are inherently part of that table as well, same as schema. In >>>>> fact, _schema_ includes all options. Not just columns and its names. If >>>>> you >>>>> change some option, you effectively have a different schema, schema >>>>> version >>>>> changes by changing an option. So if we do not copy options too, we are >>>>> kind of faking it (when we do not specify WITH OPTIONS). >>>>> >>>>> Also, imagine a situation where Accord is merged to trunk. It >>>>> introduces a new schema option called "transactional = full" which is not >>>>> default. (I am sorry if I did the spelling wrong here). So, when you have >>>>> a >>>>> table with transactional support and you do "create table ks.tb_copy like >>>>> ks.tb", when you _do not_ copy all options, this table will _not_ become >>>>> transactional. >>>>> >>>>> The next thing you go to do is to execute some transactions against >>>>> this table but well ... you can not do that, because your table is not >>>>> transactional, because you have forgotten to add "WITH OPTIONS". So you >>>>> need to go back to that and do "ALTER ks.tb_copy WITH transactional = >>>>> full" >>>>> just to support that. >>>>> >>>>> I think that you see from this pattern that it is way better if we >>>>> copy all options by default instead of consciously opt-in into them. >>>>> >>>>> also: >>>>> >>>>> "but I think there are also some users want to do basic column >>>>> information copy" >>>>> >>>>> where is this coming from? Do you have this idea somehow empirically >>>>> tested? I just do not see why somebody would want to have Cassandra's >>>>> defaults instead of what a base table contains. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:28 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The reason for using OPTION keyword is that I want to provide users >>>>> with more choices . >>>>> The default behavior for copying a table is to copy the basic item of >>>>> table （column and their data type，mask，constraint），others thing belongs to >>>>> the table like option，views，trigger >>>>> are optional in my mind. >>>>> You are absolutely right that users may want to copy all stuff but I >>>>> think there are aslo some users want to do basic column information >>>>> copy，So >>>>> I just give them a choice。As we know that the number of table parameters >>>>> is >>>>> not small，compression，compaction，gc_seconds，bf_chance，speculative_retry >>>>> and >>>>> so on. >>>>> >>>>> Besides we can see that pg have also the keyword COMMENT，COMPRESSION >>>>> which have the similar behavior as our OPTION keyword。 >>>>> >>>>> So that is why I add this keyword OPTION. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org>于2024年10月22日 周二下午11:40写道： >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that when I do this minimal CQL which shows this >>>>> feature: >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb; >>>>> >>>>> then you are saying that when I _do not_ specify WITH OPTIONS then I >>>>> get Cassandra's defaults. Only after I specify WITH OPTIONS, it would >>>>> truly be a copy. >>>>> >>>>> This is not a good design. Because to have an exact copy, I have to >>>>> make a conscious effort to include OPTIONS as well. That should not be the >>>>> case. I just want to have a copy, totally the same stuff, when I use the >>>>> minimal version of that statement. It would be better to opt-out from >>>>> options like >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITHOUT OPTIONS (you feel me) but >>>>> we do not support this (yet). >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:28 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I just don't see OPTIONS as important. When I want to copy a table, I >>>>> am copying a table _with everything_. Options included, by default. Why >>>>> would I want to have a copy of a table with options different from the >>>>> base >>>>> one? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:55 PM Bernardo Botella < >>>>> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Guo, >>>>> >>>>> +1 for the CONSTRAINTS keyword to be added into the default behavior. >>>>> >>>>> Bernardo >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2024, at 12:01 AM, guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the CONSTRAINTS keyword keyword may be in the same situation >>>>> as datamask. >>>>> Maybe it is better to include constraints into the default behavior >>>>> of table copy together with column name, column data type and data mask. >>>>> >>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:56写道： >>>>> >>>>> To yifan : >>>>> I don't mind adding the ALL keyword, and it has been updated into CEP. >>>>> >>>>> As all you can see, our original intention was that the grammar would >>>>> not be too complicated, which is what I described in cep >>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>>>> . >>>>> We gave up PG-related grammar, including INCLUDING/EXCLUDING and so on >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月21日周一 14:52写道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi , >>>>> To sefan : >>>>> I may want to explain that if there is no OPTION keyword in the CQL >>>>> statement, then the newly created table will only have the >>>>> original table's column name 、column type and data mask ,I think this is >>>>> the most basic choice when copying tables to users. >>>>> Then we do some addition, we can add original table's table options >>>>> like compaction strategy/compress strategy、index and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Recently, I have also thought about the situation of CONSTRAINTS >>>>> keyword. I think it is similar to data mask. Agree that it should be >>>>> included in the basic options of table copy (column name, column data >>>>> type >>>>> , column data mask and constraints). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> 于2024年10月19日周六 01:15写道： >>>>> >>>>> It seems like a natural extension of the CREATE TABLE statement. >>>>> Looking forward to using it in the future. >>>>> >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:11 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Right?! Reads like English, the impact on the existing CQL is minimal. >>>>> One LIKE which basically needs to be there and keywords of logical >>>>> "components" which seamlessly integrate with WITH. >>>>> >>>>> I would _not_ use WITH CONSTRAINTS because constraints will be >>>>> inherently part of a table schema. It is not an "option". We can not >>>>> "opt-out" from them. Remember we are copying a table here so if a base one >>>>> has constraints, its copy will have them too. A user can subsequently >>>>> "ALTER" them. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Basing it on CREATE TABLE, the BNF definition of the simple >>>>> implementation would look something like this: >>>>> >>>>> create_table_statement::= CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] table_name >>>>> LIKE base_table_name >>>>> [ WITH included_objects ] [ [ AND ] table_options ] >>>>> table_options::= COMPACT STORAGE [ AND table_options ] >>>>> | CLUSTERING ORDER BY '(' clustering_order ')' >>>>> [ AND table_options ] | options >>>>> clustering_order::= column_name (ASC | DESC) ( ',' column_name (ASC | >>>>> DESC) )* >>>>> included_objects::= dependent_objects [ AND dependent_objects ] >>>>> dependent_objects:= INDEXES | TRIGGERS | CONSTRAINTS | VIEWS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] [<keyspace_name>.]<table_name> LIKE >>>>> [<keyspace_name>.]<base_table_name> >>>>> [ WITH [ <included_objects > ] >>>>> [ [ AND ] [ <table_options> ] ] >>>>> [ [ AND ] CLUSTERING ORDER BY [ <clustering_column_name> (ASC | >>>>> DESC) ] ] >>>>> ; >>>>> >>>>> Examples: >>>>> >>>>> -- Create base table: >>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name ( >>>>> id UUID PRIMARY KEY, >>>>> lastname text, >>>>> firstname text >>>>> ); >>>>> >>>>> -- Create an exact copy of the base table, but do not create any >>>>> dependent objects: >>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name2 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name; >>>>> >>>>> -- Create an exact copy with all dependent objects (constraints >>>>> excluded for now): >>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name3 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>>>> WITH INDEXES AND TRIGGERS AND VIEWS; >>>>> >>>>> -- Create a copy with LCS compaction, a default TTL and all dependent >>>>> objects except indexes: >>>>> CREATE TABLE cycling.cyclist_name4 LIKE cycling.cyclist_name >>>>> WITH TRIGGERS AND VIEWS >>>>> AND compaction = { 'class' : 'LeveledCompactionStrategy' } >>>>> AND default_time_to_live = 86400; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This seems pretty clean & straightforward. >>>>> >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Dave Herrington <he...@rhinosource.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This simple approach resonates with me. I think the Cassandra doc >>>>> uses "INDEXES" as the plural for index, i.e.: >>>>> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/stable/cassandra/cql/indexes.html >>>>> >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well we could do something like: >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES AND TRIGGERS AND >>>>> compaction = {'class': '.... } AND ... >>>>> >>>>> but I can admit it might be seen as an overreach and I am not sure at >>>>> all how it would look like in the implementation because we would need to >>>>> distinguish WITH INDICES from table options. >>>>> >>>>> I would >>>>> >>>>> 1. +0 on ALL. - we don't need this. If we have just INDICES, >>>>> TRIGGERS, VIEWS at this point, I don't think enumerating it all is too >>>>> much >>>>> to ask. This is just an implementation detail and if we find it >>>>> necessary >>>>> we can add it later. If you feel strongly about this then add that but >>>>> it >>>>> is not absolutely necessary. >>>>> 2. omit OPTIONS - aren't all options copied by default? That is >>>>> the goal of the CEP, no? We might just use normal CQL while >>>>> overriding from the base table >>>>> 3. mix keywords like TRIGGERS / INDICES / CONSTRAINTS into normal >>>>> table creation statement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 3:20 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would second Štefan's option for functionality simplicity. It seems >>>>> to be unnecessary to have the keywords for both inclusion and exclusion in >>>>> the CEP. If needed, the exclusion (WITHOUT) can be introduced later. It >>>>> would still be backward compatible. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding "CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH compaction = >>>>> {'class': '.... } AND ... ", I think it only overrides the table options. >>>>> The CEP suggests the coarse-grained keyword for each category like table >>>>> options, indexes, etc. The functionality provided is not identical. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the suggestions are to make operators' life easier >>>>> by achieving table creation in a single statement. What is being proposed >>>>> in the CEP seems to be at a good balance point. Operators can alter the >>>>> table options if needed in the follow-up ALTER table statement. >>>>> >>>>> - Yifan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:41 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we are starting to complicate it. For me the most important >>>>> question is who is actually this feature for? If people want to just >>>>> prototype something fast or they just want to have "the same table just >>>>> under a different name", I think that is going to be used in 99% of cases. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My assumption of using WITH which I think I proposed first (4th post >>>>> in this thread) was to just blindly copy the most important "parts" >>>>> logically related to a table, be it indices, materialized views, or >>>>> triggers and enable / disable them as we wish. If no "WITH" is used, then >>>>> we just get a table with nothing else. "WITH" will opt-in into that. >>>>> >>>>> Seeing us contemplating using "INCLUDING" and "EXCLUDING" on >>>>> individual options makes me sad a little bit. I think we are >>>>> over-engineering this. I just don't see a reasonable use-case where users >>>>> would need to cherry-pick what they want and what not. Isn't that just too >>>>> complicated? If a table being copied drifts away too much from the >>>>> original >>>>> one then users would be better off with creating a brand new table with >>>>> CQL >>>>> as they are used to, not dealing with "copying" at all. More we drift from >>>>> what the original table was like, the less useful this feature is. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Dave Herrington < >>>>> he...@rhinosource.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry that I overlooked the definition of the default in the CEP. I >>>>> did look for it but I didn’t see it. >>>>> >>>>> I think the default behavior you explained makes perfect sense & what >>>>> one would expect. >>>>> >>>>> I like the flexibility of INCLUDING and EXCLUDING that you are >>>>> considering. >>>>> >>>>> Would it make sense to use WITH for table options, which would make it >>>>> easy (and less confusing IMHO) to override the defaults from the source >>>>> table, then use INCLUDING/EXCLUDING for all non-table options such as >>>>> constraints and indices? >>>>> >>>>> It seems this would be easier to document as well, as it could just >>>>> point to the CREATE TABLE doc for the options, rather than trying to >>>>> explain a bunch of keywords that map to table options. >>>>> >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>>>> >>>>> www.rhinosource.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To yifan : >>>>> At the beginning of the period, I also thought about adding the >>>>> keyword ALL, refer to pg >>>>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html> , >>>>> but I give up when writing cep as I find that there may be not so many >>>>> properties (only three) to copy for C* and >>>>> It is possible to decide what is needed and what is not in a very >>>>> simple cql, as our ALL is only three properties here. I want to keep it as >>>>> simple as possible (based on the advice given by Benjamin), So I grouped >>>>> the properties of the table into one category and expressed it with >>>>> OPTION keyword. >>>>> >>>>> But if we are going to split the first keyword OPTION to COMPRESSION >>>>> 、COMPACTION、COMMENT and so on. I am +1 on adding ALL back as the >>>>> properties >>>>> are so many and it is simple to use ALL instead of >>>>> list all properties. Besides I may change my keyword WITH to INCLUDING >>>>> and adding another keyword EXCLUDING to flexibly copy table >>>>> properties through simple sql statements, like using 1 not 2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING ALL EXCLUDING INDEXES >>>>> AND COMMENTS. >>>>> 2. CREATE TABLE newTb like oldTb INCLUDING COMPRESSION >>>>> CONSTRAINTS GENERATED IDENTITY STATISTICS STORAGE >>>>> >>>>> Conclusion: If there may be more keywords to consider in the future, >>>>> such as more than 4 , I am +1 on adding ALL back . >>>>> >>>>> To Dave : >>>>> Default behavior is only copy column name, data type ,data mask , >>>>> you can see more detail from CEP-43 >>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月17日周四 06:43写道： >>>>> >>>>> +1 That makes much more sense in my experience. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:12 PM Dave Herrington < >>>>> he...@rhinosource.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm coming at this with both a deep ANSI SQL background as well as CQL >>>>> background. >>>>> >>>>> Defining the default behavior is the starting point. What gets copied >>>>> if we do "CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table;" without a WITH >>>>> clause? >>>>> >>>>> Then, you build on that with the specific WITH options. WITH ALL >>>>> catches everything. >>>>> >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:16 AM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "WITH ALL" seems to be a natural addition to the directives. What do >>>>> you think about adding the fifth keyword ALL to retain all fields of the >>>>> table schema? >>>>> >>>>> For instance, CREATE TABLE new_table LIKE original_table WITH ALL, it >>>>> replicates options, indexes, triggers, constraints and any applicable >>>>> kinds >>>>> that are introduced in the future. >>>>> >>>>> - Yifan >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:46 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Disscussed with Bernardo on slack，and +1 with his advice on adding a >>>>> fourth keyword. >>>>> >>>>> The keyword would be CONSTRAINTS ， any more suggestion ？ >>>>> >>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年10月16日 周三上午9:55写道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi yifan, >>>>> Thanks for bringing this up. The SELECT permission on the original >>>>> table is needed. Mysql and PG all have mentioned this, and I also >>>>> specifically noticed this in my code. >>>>> >>>>> I probably missed this in the cep documentation. 😅 >>>>> >>>>> Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月16日周三 07:46写道： >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for creating the CEP! I think it is missing Bernardo's comment >>>>> on "the need for read permissions on the source table". >>>>> >>>>> CreateTableStatement does not check the permissions outside of the >>>>> enclosing keyspace. Having the SELECT permission on the original table is >>>>> a >>>>> requirement for CREATE TABLE LIKE. >>>>> >>>>> - Yifan >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:01 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, everyone , >>>>> I have finished the doc for CEP-43 for CREATE_TABLE_LIKE >>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-43++Apache+Cassandra+CREATE+TABLE++LIKE> >>>>> as >>>>> said before, looking forward to your suggestions. >>>>> >>>>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月25日周三 03:51写道： >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry I do not follow what you mean, maybe an example would help. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If there are multiple schema information changes in one ddl statement, >>>>> will there be schema conflicts in extreme cases? >>>>> For example, our statement contains both table creation and index >>>>> creation. >>>>> >>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com>于2024年9月24日 周二下午8:12写道： >>>>> >>>>> +1 on splitting this task and adding the ability to copy tables >>>>> through different keyspaces in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> 于2024年9月23日周一 22:05写道： >>>>> >>>>> If we have this table >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb2 ( >>>>> id int PRIMARY KEY, >>>>> name text >>>>> ); >>>>> >>>>> I can either specify name of an index on my own like this: >>>>> >>>>> CREATE INDEX name_index ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>>>> >>>>> or I can let Cassandra to figure that name on its own: >>>>> >>>>> CREATE INDEX ON ks.tb2 (name) ; >>>>> >>>>> in that case it will name that index "tb2_name_idx". >>>>> >>>>> Hence, I would expect that when we do >>>>> >>>>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb2 WITH INDICES; >>>>> >>>>> Then ks.to_copy table will have an index which is called >>>>> "to_copy_name_idx" without me doing anything. >>>>> >>>>> For types, we do not need to do anything when we deal with the same >>>>> keyspace. For simplicity, I mentioned that we might deal with the same >>>>> keyspace scenario only for now and iterate on that in the future. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:53 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Cep is being written, and I encountered some problems during the >>>>> process. I would like to discuss them with you. If you read the >>>>> description >>>>> of this CASSANDRA-7662 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662>, we will find >>>>> that initially the original creator of this jira did not intend to >>>>> implement structural copying of indexes, views, and triggers only the >>>>> column and its data type. >>>>> >>>>> However, after investigating some db related syntax and function >>>>> implementation, I found that it may be necessary for us to provide some >>>>> rich syntax to support the replication of indexes, views, etc. >>>>> >>>>> In order to support selective copy of the basic structure of the table >>>>> (columns and types), table options, table-related indexes, views, >>>>> triggers, >>>>> etc. We need some new syntax, it seems that the syntax of pg is relatively >>>>> comprehensive, it use the keyword INCLUDING/EXCLUDING to flexibly control >>>>> the removal and retention of indexes, table information, etc. see pg >>>>> create table like >>>>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/sql-createtable.html> , the new >>>>> created index name is different from the original table's index name , >>>>> seenewly >>>>> copied index names are different from original >>>>> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml#L749> >>>>> , the name is based on some rule. >>>>> Mysql is relatively simple and copies columns and indexes by default. >>>>> see mysql create table like >>>>> <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html> and >>>>> the newly created index name is the same with the original table's index >>>>> name. >>>>> >>>>> So for Casandra, I hope it can also support the information copy of >>>>> index and even view/trigger. And I also hope to be able to flexibly decide >>>>> which information is copied like pg. >>>>> >>>>> Besides, I think the copy can happen between different keyspaces. And >>>>> UDT needs to be taken into account. >>>>> >>>>> But as we know the index/view/trigger name are all under keyspace >>>>> level, so it seems that the newly created index name (or view name/ >>>>> trigger >>>>> name) must be different from the original tables' ,otherwise names would >>>>> clash . >>>>> >>>>> So regarding the above problem, one idea I have is that for newly >>>>> created types, indexes and views under different keyspaces and the same >>>>> keyspace, we first generate random names for them, and then we can add the >>>>> ability of modifying the names(for types/indexes/views/triggers) so that >>>>> users can manually change the names. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 08:06写道： >>>>> >>>>> No，I think still need some discuss on grammar detail after I finish >>>>> the first version >>>>> >>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com>于2024年9月20日 周五上午2:24写道： >>>>> >>>>> Is this CEP ready for a VOTE thread? >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 8:56 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your replies, I will prepare a CEP later. >>>>> >>>>> Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> 于2024年8月20日周二 02:11写道： >>>>> >>>>> +1 This is a CEP >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:50 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Given the fairly large surface area for this, i think it should be a >>>>> CEP. >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> Jon Haddad >>>>> Rustyrazorblade Consulting >>>>> rustyrazorblade.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:44 AM Bernardo Botella < >>>>> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Definitely a nice addition to CQL. >>>>> >>>>> Looking for inspiration at how Postgres and Mysql do that may also >>>>> help with the final design (I like the WITH proposed by Stefan, but I >>>>> would >>>>> definitely take a look at the INCLUDING keyword proposed by Postgres). >>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html >>>>> https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/create-table-like.html >>>>> >>>>> On top of that, and as part of the interesting questions, I would like >>>>> to add the permissions to the mix. Both the question about copying them >>>>> over (with a WITH keyword probably), and the need for read permissions on >>>>> the source table as well. >>>>> >>>>> Bernardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 19, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> BTW this would be cool to do as well: >>>>> >>>>> ALTER TABLE ks.to_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDICES; >>>>> >>>>> This would mean that if we create a copy of a table, later we can >>>>> decide that we need indices too, so we might "enrich" that table with >>>>> indices from the old one without necessarily explicitly re-creating them >>>>> on >>>>> that new table. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:55 PM Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think this is an interesting idea worth exploring. I definitely >>>>> agree with Benjamin who raised important questions which needs to be >>>>> answered first. Also, what about triggers? >>>>> >>>>> It might be rather "easy" to come up with something simple but it >>>>> should be a comprehensive solution with predictable behavior we all agree >>>>> on. >>>>> >>>>> If a keyspace of a new table does not exist we would need to create >>>>> that one too before. For the simplicity, I would just make it a must to >>>>> create it on same keyspace. We might iterate on that in the future. >>>>> >>>>> UDTs are created per keyspace so there is nothing to re-create. We >>>>> just need to reference it from a new table, right? >>>>> >>>>> Indexes and MVs are interesting but in theory they might be re-created >>>>> too. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be appropriate to use something like this? >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE ks.tb_copy LIKE ks.tb WITH INDEXES AND VIEWS AND TRIGGERS >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>> Without "WITH" it would just copy a table with nothing else. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:10 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello， everyone： >>>>> As Jira CASSANDRA-7662 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7662> has described >>>>> , we would like to introduce a new grammer " CREATE TABLE LIKE " >>>>> ,which simplifies creating new tables duplicating the existing ones . >>>>> The format may be like : CREATE TABLE <new_table> LIKE <old_table> >>>>> Before I implement this function, do you have any suggestions on this? >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your reply！ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>>>> >>>>> www.rhinosource.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>>>> >>>>> www.rhinosource.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>>>> >>>>> www.rhinosource.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David A. Herrington II >>>>> President and Chief Engineer >>>>> RhinoSource, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* >>>>> >>>>> www.rhinosource.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
