Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:35:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Aleksey Yeschenko (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: commits@cassandra.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12863679.1442139246000.52723.1447353311249@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12863679.1442139246000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12863679.1442139246000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12863679.1442139246649@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-10311) AbstractType value compatibility
 checks are broken for some of the implementations
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10311?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Aleksey Yeschenko updated CASSANDRA-10311:
------------------------------------------
    Summary: AbstractType value compatibility checks are broken for some of the implementations  (was: It looks like our type alterations may be buggy)

> AbstractType value compatibility checks are broken for some of the implementations
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10311
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10311
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Benedict
>             Fix For: 2.1.x, 2.2.x, 3.0.x
>
>
> 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)