[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16462165#comment-16462165
]
Benjamin Lerer commented on CASSANDRA-7622:
-------------------------------------------
{quote}Further down the road (in the 6.x/7.x timeframe), leaving these as
virtual tables instead of system views may allow future uses like
[https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign_data_wrappers]
{quote}
I think we should be careful to not mix up everything. Even if we reuse the
same mechanism internally, the way we expose functionalities to the users is
also extremely important. If we take the example of ProgreSQL, they have 2
different functionalities {{System Views}} and {{Foreign Data Wrappers}}. There
is a clear distinction between the 2 features from the outside. Mixing up
everything under the {{Virtual Table}} hat is not in my opinion the right
approach.
{quote}But on the other side, I can come up with the following
counter-arguments:
* if we do ever allow user to create their own, then "System View" becomes imo
somewhat misleading/wrong. As said above, I'm actually yet to be convinced that
we should do the former, but not to the point that I'm against future
proofing.{quote}
I am also not convinced that we should do it. I would really love to avoid
another {{Trigger}} like feature.
{quote} * we've used "virtual tables" for a long time now. I worry that it's
too late to change the naming now, that even if we somewhat officially decide
to rename to System Views, people will informally continue to refer to "virtual
tables" and more confusion than anything will follow.{quote}
[~slebresne] For {{Materialized Views}} we initially started with the {{Global
Index}} name. We only changed it later on and it was in my opinion a good
decision because people understood straight away what it was.
C* is now used by a huge amount of people. Only a tiny fraction of them is
following that ticket or the NGCC discussions. We should choose what is the
best for them.
> Implement virtual tables
> ------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: CQL
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Assignee: Chris Lohfink
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 4.x
>
> Attachments: screenshot-1.png
>
>
> There are a variety of reasons to want virtual tables, which would be any
> table that would be backed by an API, rather than data explicitly managed and
> stored as sstables.
> One possible use case would be to expose JMX data through CQL as a
> resurrection of CASSANDRA-3527.
> Another is a more general framework to implement the ability to expose yaml
> configuration information. So it would be an alternate approach to
> CASSANDRA-7370.
> A possible implementation would be in terms of CASSANDRA-7443, but I am not
> presupposing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org
