exactly what Duo said. Trying something....
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:44 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the problem is that, in MasterRpcService.execProcedure, we do not > know the type of the Procedure so it is not possible for us to require > different permissions for them. > > Please open an issue for this, maybe we need to push down the permission > check for execProcedure/execProcedureWithRet down to a place where we know > the actual type of the procedure. > > Thanks. > > 2018-03-13 3:52 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>: > > > Thanks to Ted for digging down to find HBASE-19400 as the cause of this > > one. > > > > @Appy, curious on whether my initial assessment was correct on how we got > > here. Would like to know if this was a conscious decision on your part > for > > flushes :) > > > > > > On 3/12/18 3:29 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > >> Table/Namespace/Global Admin sounds fine to me. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >>> > >>> In some $dayjob testing, we've noticed that flushing a table requires > >>> ADMIN permission by virtue of submitting the FlushProcedure (not > >>> consciously about the flush operation itself). > >>> > >>> I can see this going both ways, but I felt like ADMIN at the table > level > >>> is more appropriate than requiring the global ADMIN permission. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> - Josh > >>> > >>> > >> > -- -- Appy
