> Is it right to assume that we need to address this first in order to
implement 18102? If we leave it as it is and we implement vtable with
"unique snapshot name globally" in mind and we design that vtable like
that, until we fix this issue, snapshots would be overwritten on top of
each other if
I agree too. Given the fact that the method checking the uniqueness of a
snapshot name was implemented first, it seems to me that the second method
which is not checking it just forgot to do that rather than intentionally doing
it like that.
Is it right to assume that we need to address this
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 11:00 PM Paulo Motta wrote:
> I found this a bit surprising, since I would expect a snapshot with the same
> name on different tables to represent the same logical snapshot taken at the
> same point-in-time.
I would expect this too, 100%.
> This affects the design of
Hi,
It's possible to create a snapshot on a set of tables with the same name
name/tag with:
$ nodetool snapshot --kt-list ks.tb,system.local -t mysnapshot
$ nodetool listsnapshots
[..]
mysnapshot system local 1.16 KiB 21.47 KiB2023-03-02T13:19:13.757Z
mysnapshot ks tb 1.02 KiB
