[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18042?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17642089#comment-17642089 ]
Andres de la Peña edited comment on CASSANDRA-18042 at 12/1/22 6:13 PM: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Good, good, we are getting to agreement :) . I think that the "{_}on_use" suffix is similar to "_if_enabled", it can be applied to any "feature{_}*" property but "feature_enabled". So we could have "feature_attribute_a_on_use", etc. As for using "_warned", "_warning", "_discouraged", etc. I don't have a preference. I'm not a native English speaker and I don't have a very good sense of how weird any of those sound. was (Author: adelapena): Good, good, we'll getting to agreement :) . I think that the "_on_use" suffix is similar to "_if_enabled", it can be applied to any "feature_*" property but "feature_enabled". So we could have "feature_attribute_a_on_use", etc. As for using "_warned", "_warning", "_discouraged", etc. I don't have a preference. I'm not a native English speaker and I don't have a very good sense of how weird any of those sound. > 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: 3h > 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