[jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10723) Rewrite INITCOND after renames and alters of UDT fields

["Aleksey Yeschenko (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10723?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15010915#comment-15010915 ] 

Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-10723:
-----------------------------------------------

bq. Still unclear, if the user needs permissions on both the UDT and the affected UDAs for that.

Why would you require any permissions on UDA itself, I don't follow. You aren't altering the UDA itself, just changing the internal schema representation, something that's under the hood.

> Rewrite INITCOND after renames and alters of UDT fields
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10723
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10723
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Robert Stupp
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> (Follow-up to CASSANDRA-10721)
> In order to re-write an INITCOND value when a UDT is changed (component renamed or type altered), we will have to check for broken aggregates first (as we do not know why _exactly_ these are broken; CASSANDRA-10721 added {{Function.isBroken()}}).
> If one of the affected aggregates is broken, the request *must fail*.
> If none of the affected aggregates is broken, we can re-write the binary representation of the INITCOND and push schema migrations for these aggregates.
> Still unclear, if the user needs permissions on both the UDT _and_ the affected UDAs for that.
> Further, the UDT change and all UDA changes should be migrated in a single mutation, which feels to be the biggest change. This is not a strict requirement but would keep that schema change atomic.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)