cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Stupp (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10723) Rewrite INITCOND after renames and alters of UDT fields
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:01:11 GMT


Robert Stupp commented on CASSANDRA-10723:

Changing the name of a UDT field or changing its type may or may not break a UDF/UDA functions.
For complete safety, we should reject all these changes - for all UDT used by a UDF (and UDA

bq. require any permissions on UDA itself

Because it could break the UDA/UDF which the current user is maybe not allowed to change (break).

> Rewrite INITCOND after renames and alters of UDT fields
> -------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10723
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Robert Stupp
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.x
> (Follow-up to CASSANDRA-10721)
> In order to re-write an INITCOND value when a UDT is changed (component renamed or type
altered), we will have to check for broken aggregates first (as we do not know why _exactly_
these are broken; CASSANDRA-10721 added {{Function.isBroken()}}).
> If one of the affected aggregates is broken, the request *must fail*.
> If none of the affected aggregates is broken, we can re-write the binary representation
of the INITCOND and push schema migrations for these aggregates.
> Still unclear, if the user needs permissions on both the UDT _and_ the affected UDAs
for that.
> Further, the UDT change and all UDA changes should be migrated in a single mutation,
which feels to be the biggest change. This is not a strict requirement but would keep that
schema change atomic.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message