Does anyone have notes for those of us who couldn't make the call? On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:35 PM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > Joey has helpfully arranged a call for tomorrow at 8am PST / 10am CST / > 4pm BST to discuss Accord and other things in the community. There are no > plans to make any kind of project decisions. Everyone is welcome to drop in > to discuss Accord or whatever else might be on your mind. > > https://gather.town/app/2UKSboSjqKXIXliE/ac2021-cass-social > > > From: bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 16:22 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > No, I would expect to deliver strict serializable interactive transactions > using Accord. These would simply corroborate that the participating keys > had not modified their write timestamps during the final transaction. These > could even be undertaken with still only a single wide area round-trip, > using local copies of the data to assemble the transaction (though this > would marginally increase the chance of aborts) > > My goal for MVCC is parallelism, not additional isolation levels (though > snapshot isolation is useful and we’ll probably also want to offer that > eventually) > > From: Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@datastax.com> > Date: Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 15:15 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:56 AM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Could you explain why you believe this trade-off is necessary? We can > > support full SQL just fine with Accord, and I hope that we eventually do > so. > > > > I assume this is really referring to interactive transactions = multiple > round trips to the client within a transaction. > > You mentioned previously we could later build a more MVCC like transaction > semantic on top of Accord. (Independent reads from a single snapshot, > followed by a commit using Accord.) In this case I think the relevant > discussion is whether Accord is still the optimal building block > performance wise to do so, or whether users would then have lower > consistency level but still pay the performance cost of a stricter > consistency level. > > henrik > -- > > Henrik Ingo > > +358 40 569 7354 <358405697354> > > [image: Visit us online.] <https://www.datastax.com/> [image: Visit us on > Twitter.] <https://twitter.com/DataStaxEng> [image: Visit us on YouTube.] > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_channel_UCqA6zOSMpQ55vvguq4Y0jAg&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=bmIfaie9O3fWJAu6lESvWj3HajV4VFwgwgVuKmxKZmE&s=16sY48_kvIb7sRQORknZrr3V8iLTfemFKbMVNZhdwgw&e= > > > [image: Visit my LinkedIn profile.] <https://www.linkedin.com/in/heingo/ > > > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
