drill-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com>
Subject Re: Apache Drill Hangout Minutes - 11/1/16
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:58:59 GMT
Since I'm not that close to DRILL-4280, I wanted to clarify expectation:


<1.9 Client  <==>  1.9 Server (ok)
 1.9 Client  <==> <1.9 Server (fails)

Is that correct?






--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudheesh@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Laurent,
>
> That's right; this was mentioned in the design document.
>
> I am piggybacking on previous changes that break the "newer clients talking
> to older servers" compatibility. For example, as I understand, some
> resolved sub-tasks of DRILL-4714 [1] *implicitly* break this compatibility;
> say the "newer" API that was introduced is used by an application which is
> talking to an older server. The older server drops the connection, unable
> to handle the message.
>
> In DRILL-4280, there is an *explicit* break in that specific compatibility,
> and the error message is much cleaner with a version mismatch message. The
> difference is that the C++ client (unlike the Java client) checks for the
> server version as well, which make the compatibility break more visible.
>
> I am not sure about the plan of action in general about this compatibility.
> However, I could work around the issue by advertising clients' SASL
> capability to the server. What do you think?
>
> Thank you,
> Sudheesh
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4714
>
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Laurent Goujon <laurent@dremio.com> wrote:
>
> Just for clarity, DRILL-4280 is a breaking-protocol change, so is the plan
> to defer this change to a later release, or to defer bringing back
> compatibility between newer clients and older servers to a later release?
>
> Laurent
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Zelaine Fong <zfong@maprtech.com> wrote:
>
> Oops, mistake in my notes.  For the second item, I meant DRILL-4280, not
> DRILL-1950.
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Zelaine Fong <zfong@maprtech.com> wrote:
>
> Attendees: Paul, Padma, Sorabh, Boaz, Sudheesh, Vitalii, Roman, Dave O,
> Arina, Laurent, Kunal, Zelaine
>
> I had to leave the hangout at 10:30, so my notes only cover the
>
> discussion
>
> up till then.
>
> 1) Variable width decimal support - Dave O
>
> Currently Drill only supports fixed width byte array storage of decimals.
> Dave has submitted a pull request for DRILL-4834 to add support for
>
> storing
>
> decimals with variable width byte arrays.  Eventually, variable width can
> replace fixed width, but the pull request doesn't cover that.  Dave would
> like someone in the community to review his pull request.
>
> 2) 1.9 release - Sudheesh
>
> Sudheesh is collecting pull requests for the release.  Some have been
> reviewed and are waiting to be merged.  Sudheesh plans to commit a batch
> this Wed and another this Friday.  He's targeting having a release
> candidate build available next Monday.
>
> Laurent asked about Sudheesh's pull request for DRILL-1950.  He asked
> whether thought had been given to supporting newer Drill clients with
>
> older
>
> Drill servers.  Sudheesh indicated that doing this would entail a
>
> breaking
>
> change in the protocol, and the plan was to defer doing this for a later
> release where we may want to make other breaking changes like this.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message