It should be. But I think it's not right now. Should probably add an issue fir that.
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hmm, did you disable and then remove the table quickly? My guess is that >> those 2 actions took place too quickly (we need to add a better way to >> block). The other way that could happen is if you have 2 tables pointed at >> the same directory. > > Yeah, I immediately follow disable with remove - I thought disable was > a blocking call:( Good to know... thanks... > > Thanks, > --tim > > >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> After deleting a table that's been around a while, in the shard server >>> logs, I see tons of these errors: >>> >>> "IO Error during commit of [$tablename/shard-0000000N]"... "... no >>> longer has write lock." >>> >>> Anyone see this? Have an idea of how to tell the shard the table is >>> gone without bouncing the cluster? The table was created before I >>> realized I should be flipping the readOnly bit on table creation, if >>> that matters... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> --tim >>>
