cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aleksey Yeschenko (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10311) AbstractType value compatibility checks are broken for some of the implementations
Date Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:41:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10311?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15142995#comment-15142995
] 

Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-10311:
-----------------------------------------------

bq. Mind being more precise? What it currently allows is to change from a int or bigint to
a varint, which seems ok to me since any int or bigint is a valid binary representation for
the equivalent varint. We don't allow the reverse conversion in particular.

You are correct. While something else might be broken, this in particular is not. And nothing
else really jumped out at me either. This ticket can be closed.

> 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)

Mime
View raw message