[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15036070#comment-15036070
]
Benjamin Lerer commented on CASSANDRA-10374:
--------------------------------------------
||2.1||2.2||3.0||
|[branch|https://github.com/blerer/cassandra/tree/10374-2.1]|[branch|https://github.com/blerer/cassandra/tree/10374-2.2]|[branch|https://github.com/blerer/cassandra/tree/10374-3.0]|
|[utests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-2.1-testall/2/]|[utests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-2.2-testall/1/]|[utests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-3.0-testall/1/]|
|[dtests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-2.1-dtest/2/]|[dtests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-2.2-dtest/2/]|[utests|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/blerer/job/blerer-10374-3.0-dtest/1/]|
The patches for {{2.1}} and {{2.2}} make sure that we accept list and map
values greater than 64k and that we reject set elements and map keys which
result in a cellname bigger than 64k.
In {{3.0}} the limit for map key and set elements is 2G. The patch makes sure
that we accept values and keys greater than 64k everywhere.
> List and Map values incorrectly limited to 64k size
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10374
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10374
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Tyler Hobbs
> Assignee: Benjamin Lerer
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.0.1, 3.1, 2.1.x, 2.2.x
>
>
> With the v3 native protocol, we switched from encoding collection element
> sizes with shorts to ints. However, in {{Lists.java}} and {{Maps.java}}, we
> still validate that list and map values are smaller than
> {{MAX_UNSIGNED_SHORT}}.
> Map keys and set elements are stored in the cell name, so they're implicitly
> limited to the cell name size limit of 64k. However, for non-frozen
> collections, this limitation should not apply, so we probably don't want to
> perform this check here for those either.
> The fix should include tests where we exceed the 64k limit for frozen and
> non-frozen collections. In the case of non-frozen lists and maps, we should
> verify that the 64k cell-name size limit is enforced in a friendly way.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
