Hello! Please keep in mind that you need to create a separate proposal voting thread if you really like it to count. I wonder if Dmitry Pavlov can help us with the procedure.
Otherwise, I think it makes total sense to restrict MVCC clusters to only have MVCC caches or REPLICATED TRANSACTIONAL caches (are they compatible in our current implementation) and no ATOMIC caches at all. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 19:41, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > Ilya, > > > 1. MVCC support requires code maintenance for other developed features > even if has not used and disabled. Currently, we've got an x2 level of > difficulty for implementation of new features. > > 2. It would be much easy to develop and support clusters with > mvcc-caches only rather than have a mixed configuration. With this > option we can dramatically reduce the amount of codebase removing from > mvcc-branch local, atomic, tx caches. > > > So, I'm +1 to remove it from the master branch and mark the current > API with @IgniteExperimental. > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:29, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > Why would we drop MVCC!? > > > > I can totally imagine a scenario where a large Ignite user surfaces with > > fixes for MVCC mode, if it is kept as an experimental feature. Then maybe > > it will graduate to beta some time in future. > > > > If it does too much strain on the TC, let's discuss that, but I don't > > remember problems with TC load lately, so maybe this is a moot point. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 15:27, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > By the way, is there any reason to have this code in the master > branch > > > > > > I support removal MVCC from master. > > > > > > > > > > 6 февр. 2020 г., в 15:26, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а): > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > By the way, is there any reason to have this code in the master > > > > branch? It seems feature is in unsupportable state and just wastes TC > > > > time and our effort to support MVCC related tests. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:44 PM Alexey Goncharuk > > > > <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Agree, let's mark MVCC experimental. > > > >> > > > >> Stephen, the annotation serves as an additional documentation-style > > > marker. > > > >> For now there are no compile-time warnings when the API is used. > > > >> > > > >> чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 14:35, Stephen Darlington < > > > >> stephen.darling...@gridgain.com>: > > > >> > > > >>> Yes! I’ve already seen people try to use this without awareness > that > > > it’s > > > >>> not production ready. > > > >>> > > > >>> What happens with the annotation, incidentally? Is it just in the > > > >>> documentation or do you get a compile-time warning? > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:32, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hello, Igniters. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Should we mark MVCC feature with the new @IgniteExperimental? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We explicitly note users that MVCC has beta status, for now [1] > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Beta version of Transactional SQL and MVCC > > > >>>>> In Ignite v2.7, Transactional SQL and MVCC are released as beta > > > >>> versions to allow users to experiment and share feedback. > > > >>>>> This version of Transactional SQL and MVCC should not be > considered > > > for > > > >>> production. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1] > > > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/multiversion-concurrency-control > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
