[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15106317#comment-15106317
]
Hudson commented on PHOENIX-2591:
---------------------------------
SUCCESS: Integrated in Phoenix-master #1087 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Phoenix-master/1087/])
PHOENIX-2591 Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL (jtaylor: rev
f591da44c9ee85ee7ab0fa910e3b18e649d86cdf)
* phoenix-core/src/test/java/org/apache/phoenix/util/TestUtil.java
* phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/execute/MutationState.java
* phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/util/TransactionUtil.java
> Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-2591
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: James Taylor
> Assignee: James Taylor
> Fix For: 4.7.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-2591.patch
>
>
> Seems that the number of times we commit/rollback transactions during DDL
> operations could be improved. See TransactionUtil.getTableTimestamp() for
> example. There'd also be another couple when MutationState.commitWriteFence()
> is called when a CREATE INDEX is performed too.
> I realize we're doing this to get the transaction read pointer to "catch up"
> to the current time, as we use the read pointer as our "current time" for
> transactional tables. However, what would the impact be if we used the
> transaction write pointer instead?
> At a minimum, we need to document what we're doing before we forget.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
