If you’re inventing new syntax... Wouldn’t an a async/await be more useful - to declaratively indicate the desired dependencies between simultaneously operating statements? That way you can work with the results of an inserted PK or the row count to inform later statements - when needed. Eg. ‘returning async’
I believe this suggestion came up at the time. I think we didn't do anything like it because it would have been more complicated both to implement and to describe, and because it's not particularly common for people to use/need the values that can be returned by the statements that we can parallelize.
The future, though, is long and open.
Why do you say that they don't hold, exactly? We take our consistency guarantees, and correctness more generally, deadly serious. I think it's fair to say that we did quite well on Aphyr's review; he's found some quite obscure issues that were quickly fixed. More details here: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/cockroachdb-beta-passes-j...
I think your information is incomplete or out of date. Do you have a source other than the Jepsen blog? That seems to make clear that the two issues that were found in the tested beta release were quickly resolved. [0]
This seems to be a trend that I see across open source projects. They blog about features that Oracle has had for 25 years as if it's something new. Can someone enlighten me as to why there's interest around X DB's implementation of something that's been built dozens of times before?
