CCS version support information #1359
Conversation
charlotte-hoblik
added
the
documentation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR fixes the CCS version support information by updating the compatibility table to reflect accurate support indicators.
- Corrected the support indicator for version 8.18 in the compatibility table.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
solutions/search/cross-cluster-search.md:1120
- Verify that the change to the 'No' indicator for the local cluster version in the 8.18 row is intentional and aligns with the documented compatibility specifications. If local cluster support exists for 8.18, update the icon accordingly.
| 8.18 |  |  |  |  |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
The CCS support matrix after correction: |
| | | Remote cluster version | | ||
| | Local cluster version | 7.17 | 8.0 – 8.17 | 8.18 | 9.0 | | ||
| | 7.17 |  |  |  |  | | ||
| | 8.0 – 8.17 |  |  |  |  | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this 8.0-8.17 "Yes" is also wrong. We only support back to 7.17 from 8.0, but not 8.1, following the "previous minor" rule. This is shown correctly on this page: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/8.18/modules-cross-cluster-search.html#ccs-supported-configurations
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the review!
You’re right that based on the “previous minor” rule, only 8.0 from the 8.0–8.17 range supports querying 7.17. The table here (compared to the other one) uses a simplified format, where support is marked if any version in the range supports a pairing.
That said, I see how this could be misleading. I’m happy to adjust the structure—for example, breaking out 8.0 into its own row.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’ve made the changes we discussed:
• 8.0 now has its own row
• 8.17 is split into a separate column for clarity
Here’s the updated version. Let me know what you think! 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see this has already merged, but isn't the intersection of 8.1-8.17 and 8.0-8.16 still incorrect? It indicates a local 8.17 can CCS against a remote 8.0.
Don't we need to list every minor version in the headers as we did in 8.x docs for complete accuracy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rseldner shouldn't this page be analogous to the 8.0 version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't this page be analogous to the 8.0 version?
You mean how it basically shows how any 7.x can CCS any remote 7.x?
I'm not so sure it should because in 8.x we became more restrictive and introduced these rules.
- The previous minor version.
- The same version.
- A newer minor version in the same major version.
The 7.x docs do not have these same restrictions documented. Example: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/7.16/modules-cross-cluster-search.html#ccs-supported-configurations
But I'm not a source of truth on the topic. I just know that the table does not align with the stated rules.
In the interest of keeping the table condensed maybe we could simply add an asterisk and footnote to the 8.1-8.17 / 8.0-8.16 intersection to explain/reiterate the "previous minor" nuance.
Otherwise...
I think this monster of a table would be technically correct
| 7.17 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 8.7 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 8.10 | 8.11 | 8.12 | 8.13 | 8.14 | 8.15 | 8.16 | 8.17 | 8.18 | 9.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.17 |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| 8.0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.3 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.4 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.6 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.7 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.8 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.9 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.10 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.11 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.12 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.13 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.14 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.15 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.16 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.17 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8.18 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9.0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leemthompo
dismissed
their stale review
Michael pointed out this still wasn't accurate :)
Following up on the discussion in #1359, this PR extends the CCS compatibility matrix to include 8.x minor versions for maximum accuracy.
4 participants
This PR is fixing CCS version support information.
Based on #1350