If that is the case, should we remove the "hawq" CLI? Jon
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Alex (Oleksandr) Diachenko < odiache...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I think it was designed that Ambari is supposed to be only one source of > true. > The whole purpose of integration id to provide a user-friendly interface > and avoid manually editing/distributing config files > or running CLI commands. > The idea of coupling HAWQ master with Ambari doesn't seem to be clean. > > Regards, Alex. > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Jon Roberts <jrobe...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > It would be handy if the "hawq config" also updated Ambari's database so > > that changes could be made in either place are retained when changes are > > made in either place. > > > > Register Ambari: > > hawq ambari -u admin -w admin -h myhost -p 8080 > > > > "hawq config" could then raise INFO/WARN messages about updating Ambari. > > > > Example: > > hawq config -c hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory -v 16gb > > INFO: Updated Ambari with hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory=16gb > > or > > hawq config -c hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory -v 16gb > > WARN: Failed to update Ambari with hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory=16gb. Please > > update Ambari credentials manually to retain this configuration change > > after a restart. > > > > The implementation would require interacting with the Ambari APIs and > also > > storing the credentials in an encrypted file on the HAWQ Master. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Jon Roberts > > Principal Engineer | jrobe...@pivotal.io | 615-426-8661 > > >
