[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10723?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15011327#comment-15011327
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-10723:
----------------------------------------------
bq. Changing the name of a UDT field or changing its type may or may not break
a UDF/UDA functions.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that's a problem in my opinion. I do think we
might want to stick to what is done in CASSANDRA-10721 and forbid renames in
UDT that is used in declared UDF/UDA completely. If people really want to
rename, they'll have to drop the UDF/UDA, do the rename, and re-declare the
UDF/UDA, which isn't super convenient, but it's still better imo than having
the rename silently breaking functions (which will force you to re-declare the
functions anyway).
> Rewrite INITCOND after renames and alters of UDT fields
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10723
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10723
> 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
(v6.3.4#6332)
