cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benedict (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (CASSANDRA-10311) It looks like our type alterations may be buggy
Date Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:14:45 GMT
Benedict created CASSANDRA-10311:
------------------------------------

             Summary: It looks like our type alterations may be buggy
                 Key: CASSANDRA-10311
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10311
             Project: Cassandra
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Core
            Reporter: Benedict


We should document how type coercion works, in all contexts (UDFs, query responses, merging),
and what our criteria are for success. Right now it looks like we perform no conversion, so
we should require that they are compared in the same way (if they are clusterings), and that
they at least have the same number of bytes (if both fixed width).

Integer type considers itself value compatible with Int32 and Long, which from an AlterTable
point of view at least seems potentially problematic. 

It's very likely I'm missing something. However as it stands we seem able to read an old type
from an sstable, have it make it through a compaction unscathed, and write out the same bytes
"as" the new type. If I'm correct about this behaviour, this will corrupt this partition in
the new sstable so that it cannot be read.

Not marking as critical/blocker, as I'm not familiar enough with how this works to say if
this brief analysis is correct, but if I am we should raise the priority.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message