I'm strongly support removal of MVCC from master.

At the current state it bloats code base and should be reworked from
scratch using separate code base.

чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 19:45, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>:

> 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
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>


-- 

Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov

Reply via email to