It would be a major functional change. Someone might be relying on the table ownership semantic. However, 2.0 would be the next opportunity to introduce a change of this type before 3.0.
I don't think we need table owners. It is a shortcut in the permissions model which is good for usability but bad for adding complexity. Removing the shortcut would make it more likely we'd see odd situations like where a user can create a table but surprisingly lack other permissions, but that would be a consequence of mismanagement of grants by cluster admins, not a bug or functional gap introduced by removing table ownership. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: > The table owner is used by AC, Is BC broken if we remove the table owner? > BTW, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11996 try to make the > owner carry more information, such as email and webpage. > > On 2017-09-26 12:07, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > In HBASE-6188 we deprecated table owners for the 0.95 release. What do > > folks think about removing it for the 2.0 release? > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
