Github user bdeggleston commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/224#discussion_r188782098
--- Diff:
src/java/org/apache/cassandra/cql3/statements/AlterKeyspaceStatement.java ---
@@ -96,7 +98,35 @@ private void warnIfIncreasingRF(KeyspaceMetadata ksm,
KeyspaceParams params)
StorageService.instance.getTokenMetadata(),
DatabaseDescriptor.getEndpointSnitch(),
params.replication.options);
- if (newStrategy.getReplicationFactor() >
oldStrategy.getReplicationFactor())
+
+ validateTransientReplication(oldStrategy, newStrategy);
+ warnIfIncreasingRF(oldStrategy, newStrategy);
+ }
+
+ private void validateTransientReplication(AbstractReplicationStrategy
oldStrategy, AbstractReplicationStrategy newStrategy)
+ {
+ if (oldStrategy.getReplicationFactor().trans == 0 &&
newStrategy.getReplicationFactor().trans > 0)
+ {
+ Keyspace ks = Keyspace.open(keyspace());
+ for (ColumnFamilyStore cfs: ks.getColumnFamilyStores())
+ {
+ if (cfs.viewManager.hasViews())
+ {
+ throw new ConfigurationException("Cannot use transient
replication on keyspaces using materialized views");
+ }
+
+ if (cfs.indexManager.hasIndexes())
+ {
+ throw new ConfigurationException("Cannot use transient
replication on keyspaces using secondary indexes");
+ }
+ }
+
+ }
+ }
--- End diff --
If you're keeping the total number of replicas the same, I don't think
there would be any difference between reducing the number of transient
replicas, and increasing the replication factor on a normally replicated
keyspace. You'd just decrease transient count one at a time and do a full
repair between each? If you were reducing both (ie: 5/2 -> 4/1), that shouldn't
cause any problems at all.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
