And I think this patch would still be useful and legitimate if the TTL of the initial increment is taken into account.
Yes, I've read the discussion. My use-case is similar to the use-case of the contributor.
So that's the reason why I've asked if it works or not. (with the flaw of course).On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Jonathan Ellis <email@example.com> wrote:If you read the discussion on that ticket, the point is that the
approach is fundamentally flawed.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Utku Can Topçu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Can anyone confirm that this patch works with the current trunk?
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Sylvain Lebresne <email@example.com>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Utku Can Topçu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I'm experimenting and developing using counters. However, I've come to a
>>> usecase where I need counters to expire and get deleted after a certain time
>>> of inactivity (i.e. have countercolumn deleted one hour after the last
>>> As far as I can tell counter columns don't have TTL in the thrift
>>> interface, is it because of a limitation of the counter implementation?
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support