The acl table and label tables are currently guarded in the AccessController or VisibilityController. As Srikanth mentioned, it is related to HBASE-13336. Should we avoid duplicate checking and make the logic/responsibility clear? The problem probably also exist for the delete/alter/modify table operations.
Jerry On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Stephen Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > yes, my proposed change is that do the 'tableName.isSystemTable ()' check, > instead of 'tableName.equals(TableName.META_TABLE_NAME)' - this check would > include all tables inside the hbase namespace. > > Thanks > Stephen > > By the way, we should rename the 'hbase' namespace to 'system' namespace to > make it clearer :-). Now is too late :-(. > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 disabling the visibility label table is going to be a bad time. > > > > Maybe just disallow for the whole hbase namespace? > > > > -- > > Sean > > On Apr 2, 2015 5:54 PM, "Stephen Jiang" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In disable table, we specifically check whether it is a META table; if > a > > > table is a META table, we disallow the table disable. However, I think > > > other system tables should have the same treatment (is it possible > that a > > > namespace table is disable and the system is still functional without > > > issue?). > > > > > > if(tableName.equals(TableName.META_TABLE_NAME)) { > > > > > > throw new ConstraintException("Cannot disable catalog table"); > > > > > > } > > > I want to extend the disable-not-allowed treatment to all system > tables, > > > please let me know if you disagree. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Stephen > > > > > >
