Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

iter_start_seqnum and preserve_deletes are going to be deprecated (use user-defined timestamp instead) #9090

Closed
jay-zhuang opened this issue Oct 29, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jay-zhuang
Copy link
Contributor

tldr

ReadOptions::iter_start_seqnum and DBOptions::preserve_deletes are going to be deprecated, please try using user defined timestamp feature instead.

details

ReadOptions::iter_start_seqnum and DBOptions::preserve_deletes are used to support differential snapshots. Currently the feature is not well maintained (some APIs are not fully supported, e.g. #6837, #8472), and the interface is not user friendly, which returns rocksdb internal key from the iterator. There's a new user defined timestamp feature introduced, which is to support similar feature. User defined timestamp is more flexible and has better user interface. Please switching to that if you're using these feature. The deprecated feature will be removed in a future release.

@jay-zhuang jay-zhuang self-assigned this Oct 29, 2021
jay-zhuang added a commit to jay-zhuang/rocksdb that referenced this issue Nov 19, 2021
Summary:
`ReadOptions::iter_start_seqnum` and `DBOptions::preserve_deletes` are
deprecated, please try using user defined timestamp feature instead.
The feature is used to support differential snapshots, but not well
maintained (facebook#6837, facebook#8472) and the interface is not user friendly which
returns an internal key from the iterator. The user defined timestamp
feature is a more flexible feature to support similar usecase, please
switch to that if you have such usecase.
The deprecated feature will be removed in a future release.

Test Plan: check LOG

Fix facebook#9090
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant