[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18042?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17638580#comment-17638580
]
Stefan Miklosovic commented on CASSANDRA-18042:
-----------------------------------------------
_They had been depending on row level TTLs which sometimes didn't get set._
I understand that, but that is their mistake. If they added it, it would not
happen. For that reason a warning as default seems to be better. We can tweak
the message saying that they need to TTL their inserts if they expect data to
be expired as table settings wont do it. It is something else you set it to
fail on your side. You are definitely allowed to do that. It just should not be
the default.
Honestly I do not understand from where people got this idea that TWCS is
supposed to remove data automagically.
_it may surprise users who convert a table from Size Tiered to TWC_
When somebody is changing compaction strategies, they are doing it with some
goal in their mind, it needs to serve some purpose. What purpose it has in
their case? What they think will happen doing that?
> Implement a guardrail for not having zero default ttl on tables with TWCS
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-18042
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18042
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Feature/Guardrails, Legacy/Core
> Reporter: Stefan Miklosovic
> Assignee: Stefan Miklosovic
> Priority: Normal
> Fix For: 4.x
>
> Time Spent: 2h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> A user was surprised that his data have not started to expire after 90 days
> on his TWCS, he noticed that default_time_to_live on the table was set to 0
> (by accident from his side) and inserts were using TTL = 0 too.
> It is questionable why it it possible to create a table with TWCS and enable
> a user to specify default_time_to_live to be zero.
> On the other hand, I would argue that having default_time_to_live set to 0 on
> TWCS does not necessarily mean that such combination is illegal. It is about
> people just using that with advantage very often so tables are compacted away
> nicely. However, that does not have to mean that they could not use it with
> 0. But I yet have to see a use-case where TWCS was used and default ttl was
> set to 0 on purpose. Merely looking into Cassandra codebase, there are only
> cases when this parameter is not 0.
> There are three approaches:
> 1) just reject such statements (for CreateTable and AlterTable statements)
> where default_time_to_live = 0
> 2) Implement a guardrail for 1) so it can be enabled / disabled on demand
> 3) Leave possibility to set default_time_to_live to 0 on a table but make a
> guardrail for UpdateStatement so it might reject queries for tables with
> default_time_to_live is zero and for which its TTL (on that update statement)
> is set to 0 too.
> I would be careful about making the current configuration illegal because of
> backward compatibility. For that reason 2) makes the most sense to me.
> Maybe implementing 3) would make sense as well. There might be a table which
> has default ttl set to 0 as it expects a user to supply TTL every time.
> However, as it is not currently enforced anywhere, a client might still
> insert TTLs to be set to 0 even by accident.
> POC for 2) is here
> https://github.com/instaclustr/cassandra/commit/0b4dcc3d3deeffa393c02a3b80e27482007f9579
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org
