Knowing there is a correctness issue in LWT, and given users use LWT
primarily for correctness, my opinion is we should commit the correctness
patch (makes it one of #1, #3 or #4)
I agree we should not cause further delay to 4.0 release (making it one of
#3 or #4).
Con for #3 would be,
In my opinion, a similar calculus should be applied to 3.0 and 3.11. This is
a(n arguably quite serious) bug, so whatever is not overly onerous to backport
should be considered while they are supported. The work under discussion has
two components: a replacement to the core consensus
> Regarding CASSANDRA-12126 and 4.0 we are facing several options and
> Benedict, Sylvain and I wanted to get the community feedback on them.
>
> We can:
>
>1. Try to use Benedict proposal for 4.0 if the community has the
>appetite for it. The main issue there is some potential extra
Got it.
Thanks for the extra context.
No real opinion here. :)
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:29 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> It's been there since the beginning.
>
> If we were to consider the alternative proposal for 4.0, it would not have
> to be blocking for release. I had planned to
It's been there since the beginning.
If we were to consider the alternative proposal for 4.0, it would not have to
be blocking for release. I had planned to come forward after 4.0, primarily
because I did not want to create further political complexities for the project
at this time, but also
How old is the C-12126 surfaced defect? i.e. is this a thing we've had
since initial introduction of paxos or is it a regression we introduced
somewhere along the way?
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:03 AM Benjamin Lerer
wrote:
> CASSANDRA-12126 addresses one correctness issue of Light Weight
>
CASSANDRA-12126 addresses one correctness issue of Light Weight
Transactions. Unfortunately, the current patch developed by Sylvain and
Benedict requires an extra round trip between the coordinator and the
replicas for SERIAL and LOCAL_SERIAL reads.
After some experimentations, Benedict discovered
