Jeffrey's response is here: http://s.apache.org/B5o

Any user who doesn't want the sequence table salted can add a
phoenix.sequence.saltBuckets=0 in their hbase-sites.xml.

I don't understand the idea of changing our backward compatibility
contract mid-flight in a patch release . I think we should discuss
that separately, after the release and all agree on it, rather than
hold up a patch release. This upgrade meets the same backward
compatibility contract as previous releases.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Purtell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Scanning backwards in this thread I don't see that. I guess it was in another 
> response. So can we set phoenix.sequence.saltBuckets to 0 by default then in 
> this release?
>
>
>
>> On Nov 16, 2014, at 2:02 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As Jeffrey pointed out, there's already a way to turn off the upgrade
>> - just set the phoenix.sequence.saltBuckets to 0.
>>
>> The upgrade meets our current backward compatibility contract. Why
>> would we vote down a patch release based on a proposed enhancement?
>>
>>    James
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Purtell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think that is a reasonable set of steps to take. We'd only disable the
>>> upgrade code, perhaps with a configuration toggle that defaults to 'false'.
>>> Then anyone upgrading either from 4.1 or 4.2.0 to 4.2.1 will be ok, and if
>>> coming from 4.1, mixed 4.1 and 4.2.1 clients will be fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2014, at 1:40 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not mean to start a heated discussion, apologies for that.
>>>
>>> For the record, here is what I am suggesting:
>>>
>>> 1) remove or disable the SEQUENCE table upgrade for 4.2.1
>>> 2) put out a note that 4.2.0 has issues when you come from 4.1 and use
>>> sequences, and to wait for 4.2.1 in that case
>>> 3) (with that we have breathing room to) brainstorm upgrade procedures for
>>> 4.2.2 or 4.3.x
>>>
>>> In my opinion this would be the best option. As usually, these are just my
>>> $0.02.
>>>
>>> We can take it or leave it. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> To: lars hofhansl <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Andrew Purtell
>>> <[email protected]>; James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:48 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 4.2.1 RC1
>>>
>>> Yes, 4.2 release already had the salting upgrade code for sequences. I'm not
>>> opposed to changing our upgrade contract, but I'd like that to be done in a
>>> follow up release.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Does Phoenix 4.2.0 have the salting upgrade codle? If yes, I agree. If not,
>>> there is no public release of Phoenix that has the upgrade code.
>>> And here is my feedback with my Salesforce hat on: It breaks things! And it
>>> leads to operational complexity and/or custom patches for us.
>>>
>>> Why are you opposed to even discussing a simple change (removal of a few
>>> lines of code)?
>>>
>>> The pro is that upgrading from 4.1 is easier for large users, the con is
>>> that now the sequence table will remain unsalted. These are the only
>>> relevant points to discuss.
>>> Let's weigh these pros/cons on their own merit and decide what we should do.
>>> That is all that I am asking.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> To: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl
>>> <[email protected]>; James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 9:54 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 4.2.1 RC1
>>>
>>> @Jesse - the sequence table was converted to being salted in the 4.2
>>> release which is already out.
>>>
>>> @Andrew - I like that idea - that would be an improvement. The
>>> implementation might be tricky, depending on the type of upgrade
>>> that's necessary to do. Let's discuss this for the next patch release
>>> and come up with a plan.
>>>
>>> FWIW, Phoenix has does it's upgrade in same manner for all of its 20
>>> prior releases and we've never heard back from any of our users that
>>> this is broken or not useful. The upgrade of the sequence table to be
>>> salted is already released as of the 4.2 release, so holding up the
>>> patch over this doesn't make sense. Can it be improved? Sure, but
>>> that's not a reason to hold up this patch release with its 30 bug
>>> fixes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Andrew Purtell
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Can we just make auto schema upgrade configurable in general? Then this
>>>> issue and others like it we might have going forward can be controlled. It
>>>> should be possible to deploy 4.2 clients and have them run in "4.1 mode"
>>>> until the fleet is ready for a cut over to a 4.2 schema upgrade... and same
>>>> for any subsequent minor bump IMO.
>>>>
>>>> We should also have a discussion about what kind of major/minor/patch
>>>> version compatibility expectations we want to and/or should set for users
>>>> separate from this vote thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Jesse Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont think it is that unreasonable to not split the sequences table for
>>>>> a
>>>>> release (this is the incompatible change, right?) to gain the ability to
>>>>> mix 4.1 and 4.2 clients.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, its a new part of the compatibility story but honestly a necessity
>>>>> to
>>>>> anyone looking to run phoenix in production without having a large number
>>>>> of your clients all stop working at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is, how critical is the incompatible feature? If its a big
>>>>> deal, then we can cut a major release with it. If its a small segment of
>>>>> use cases and some minor perf improvements, then I think we should push
>>>>> it.
>>>>> In the between, then we should discuss (and talk to users about what they
>>>>> want, because that's who we are developing for, in the end).
>>>>>
>>>>> We can figure out how to make it compatible in this release - simple flag
>>>>> check should be sufficent in this case - and update our policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a lot to gain for not much cost. But maybe I'm missing something
>>>>>
>>>>> -j
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014, 6:00 PM lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may work "as designed". but that does not make it _useful_. It is
>>>>>> something new that we encountered that we did not think through.
>>>>>> On whether it's a new requirement, that depends on what "backwards
>>>>>> compatibility" means.
>>>>>> If we say a 4.2 server is backwards compatible with a 4.1 client, we
>>>>>> haven't really specified what that means.It is clear that 4.2 metadata
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> *not* work with a 4.1 client, but is that really useful then? It means
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> user would need to upgrade all their client at the exact same moment.
>>>>>> If it matters, we can call it a "new requirement", and still do that in
>>>>>> 4.2. The release is not out, so we can fix it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This does break things, as we've seen. I would like to discuss it here.
>>>>>> Since we did not finish voting - if we wanted to change this, now is the
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>> -- Lars
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     From: James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl <
>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:45 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 4.2.1 RC1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This works as designed. Supporting a mix of 4.1 and 4.2 clients has
>>>>>> never been in our backwards compatibility contract. If we want to add
>>>>>> this new requirement in 4.3, then that's fine, but let's at least be
>>>>>> clear that this is a *new* requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:14 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> As we discovered at Salesforce, this breaks mixed 4.1 and 4.2 clients
>>>>>> when those clients use sequences. As soon as the first 4.2 connects to a
>>>>>> cluster upgraded to 4.2 the cluster's metadata is upgraded. At that
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> 4.1 clients using sequences are broken.
>>>>>>> I propose we sink the RC, remove the upgrade code from 4.2, and push it
>>>>>> to 4.3. That means the sequence table will not be pre-split in 4.2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's discuss, I won't -1 the RC until we do.
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Lars
>>>>>>>   From: James Taylor <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:25 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 4.2.1 RC1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 4.2.1 RC1. This is a bug
>>>>>>> fix/patch release of Phoenix 4.2, compatible with the 0.98 branch of
>>>>>>> Apache HBase with feature parity against the Phoenix 3.2 release. The
>>>>>>> release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The previous RC was sunk due to a backward compatibility issue and
>>>>>>> various other bugs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a complete list of changes, see:
>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/phoenix/4.2/CHANGES
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/phoenix/phoenix-4.2.1-rc1/src/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The binary artifacts can be found at:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/phoenix/phoenix-4.2.1-rc1/bin/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KEYS file available here:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/phoenix/KEYS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The hash and tag to be voted upon:
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=phoenix.git;a=commit;h=
>>>>>> e00763ee0151518decc2db39b207a6e674c0eebb
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=phoenix.git;a=tag;
>>>>>> h=refs/tags/v4.2.1-rc1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> The Apache Phoenix Team
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply via email to