I am voting against this for now. There is an unaddressed gap between the functions. I do not believe there is an equivalent replacement for the MAXWRITETIME function already, which will disrupt its adopters.
MAXWRITETIME handles both single value columns and collections as input. Meanwhile, COLLECTION_MAX(WRITETIME(..)) only applies to collections. There is CASSANDRA-18085 aims to extend COLLECTION_MAX to non-collection values. After merging CASSANDRA-18085, then we have a true replacement and can remove MAXWRITETIME. - Yifan On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:32 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > Agreed. If we release it, we can’t remove it after. Option 2 is off the > table. > > — > Jon Haddad > Rustyrazorblade Consulting > rustyrazorblade.com > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:13 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we have a public-facing API that we’re contemplating releasing to the >> public, and we don’t think it’s needed, we should remove it before it’s >> launched and we’re stuck with it forever. >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 20, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan <jerem...@datastax.com> >> wrote: >> >> +1 from me for 1, just remove it now. >> I think this case is different from CASSANDRA-19556/CASSANDRA-17425. The >> new guardrail from 19556 which would deprecate the 17425 has not been >> committed yet. In the case of MAXWRITETIME the replacement is already in >> the code, we just didn’t remove MAXWRITETIME yet. >> >> Jeremiah Jordan >> e. jerem...@datastax.com >> w. www.datastax.com >> >> >> >> On Jun 20, 2024 at 11:46:08 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> List, >>> >>> we need your opinions about CASSANDRA-18078. >>> >>> That ticket is about the removal of MAXWRITETIME function which was >>> added in CASSANDRA-17425 and firstly introduced in 5.0-alpha1. >>> >>> This function was identified to be redundant in favor of CASSANDRA-8877 >>> and CASSANDRA-18060. >>> >>> The idea of the removal was welcomed and the patch was prepared doing so >>> but it was never delivered and the question what to do with it, in >>> connection with 5.0.0, still remains. >>> >>> The options are: >>> >>> 1) since 18078 was never released in GA, there is still time to remove >>> it. >>> 2) it is too late for the removal hence we would keep it in 5.0.0 and we >>> would deprecate it in 5.0.1 and remove it in trunk. >>> >>> It is worth to say that there is a precedent in 2), in CASSANDRA-17495, >>> where it was the very same scenario. A guardrail was introduced in alpha1. >>> We decided to release and deprecate in 5.0.1 and remove in trunk. The same >>> might be applied here, however we would like to have it confirmed if this >>> is indeed the case or we prefer to just go with 1) and be done with it. >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >>
