snazy opened a new issue, #766: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/766
### Describe the bug Despite that `PolarisMetaStoreSession` [clearly says](https://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/88994f495a844f420187b9404511504601081a1a/polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/persistence/PolarisMetaStoreSession.java#L45-L46) that `it [is] really easy to back this using [...] simpler KV store.` the whole code architecture of everything around persistence in Polaris requires nothing less than (relational) transactions and strong consistency across multiple rows in multiple tables. For example `org.apache.polaris.core.persistence.PolarisMetaStoreManagerImpl#writeEntity`: ```java private void writeEntity( @Nonnull PolarisMetaStoreSession ms, @Nonnull PolarisBaseEntity entity, boolean writeToActive) { ms.writeToEntities(entity); ms.writeToEntitiesChangeTracking(entity); if (writeToActive) { ms.writeToEntitiesActive(entity); } } ``` works against 2-3 different _rows_ in 2-3 different _tables_, requiring that all or none of the changes succeed - this is multiplied by the number of entities being written. On top it requires that entities being read before (existing and non-existing) did not change when the tx gets committed. The "pattern" of having these different tables leaks into a lot of places. It effectively makes it rather impossible to use anything else than a relational database w/ isolation level `SERIALIZABLE`. ### To Reproduce _No response_ ### Actual Behavior _No response_ ### Expected Behavior _No response_ ### Additional context _No response_ ### System information _No response_ -- 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]
