This is a breaking change, isn't it? Are we breaking the language and
updating the CQL major *again*?
-- Forwarded message --
From: jbel...@apache.org
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Subject: [1/4] git commit: note that using KEY instead of the defined
key_alias has been
Pedantic answer: yes, hence the NEWS entry
More accurate answer: we've fixed a bug that allowed nonsense queries
Long answer: we started off requiring the C* row key, aka PRIMARY KEY
in CQL DDL, to be named key. We fixed that in 0.8.1, and required
that SELECT statements use the actual PK name
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
Pedantic answer: yes, hence the NEWS entry
More accurate answer: we've fixed a bug that allowed nonsense queries
Long answer: we started off requiring the C* row key, aka PRIMARY KEY
in CQL DDL, to be named key. We
I've tagged 7 tickets as critical [1] for 1.1. All of them deal
with CQL; I strongly believe that 1.1 needs to be where CQL goes from
being the future to being the present. We've been promising this
for almost a year now and it's time to deliver.
All of these (with the exception of 3707, which
Those were grandfathered in back in the day by CFMetaData.getKeyName
simply returning KEY in that case.
So if you have no key_alias defined, or it was defined to KEY, nothing
changes. But if you did define PK to be something else, then you need
to use that PK name in your queries. (Which,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
Those were grandfathered in back in the day by CFMetaData.getKeyName
simply returning KEY in that case.
So if you have no key_alias defined, or it was defined to KEY, nothing
changes. But if you did define PK to be
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tagged 7 tickets as critical [1] for 1.1. All of them deal
with CQL; I strongly believe that 1.1 needs to be where CQL goes from
being the future to being the present. We've been promising this
for almost a year
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tagged 7 tickets as critical [1] for 1.1. All of them deal
with CQL;
Actually 1391 doesn't, but is quite important nonetheless.
All of these (with the exception of 3707, which is relatively quick)
are in progress,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Brandon Williams dri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tagged 7 tickets as critical [1] for 1.1. All of them deal
with CQL;
Actually 1391 doesn't, but is quite important nonetheless.
The
+1
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Brandon Williams dri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tagged 7 tickets as critical [1] for 1.1. All of them deal
with
10 matches
Mail list logo
