Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

2024-06-03 Thread Miklosovic, Stefan via dev
You wrote in the CEP: As we mentioned in the motivation section, we currently have some guardrails for columns size in place which can be extended for other data types. Those guardrails will take preference over the defined constraints in the schema, and a SCHEMA ALTER adding constraints that br

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

2024-06-03 Thread Bernardo Botella
Basically, I am trying to protect the limits set by the operator against misconfigured schemas from the customers. I see the guardrails as a safety limit added by the operator, setting the limits within the customers owning the actual schema (and their constraints) can operate. With that visio

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

2024-06-03 Thread Miklosovic, Stefan via dev
That would work reliably in case there is no way how to misconfigure guardrails in the cluster. What if you set a guardrail on one node but you don’t set it (or set it differently) on the other? If it is configured differently and you want to check the guardrails if constraints do not violate th

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

2024-06-03 Thread Bernardo Botella
Yes, that is correct. This particular behavior will need CEP-24 in order to work reliably. But, if my understanding is correct, that statement holds true for the entirety of Guardrails, and not only for this particular feature. > On Jun 3, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > Tha