Thanks a lot for backporting PHOENIX-7024 and PHOENIX-6909, Tanuj. PHOENIX-6888 is a much more involved patch, and the feature is not very widely used, so we don't need to backport it.
Istvan On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thank you! > > Do you have an opinion on PHOENIX-6888 ? > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:11 PM Tanuj Khurana <tkhur...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I will take care of backporting PHOENIX-7024 to 5.1. >> >> Thanks, >> Tanuj >> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 02:10, Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Hi! >> > >> > We have recently run into a paging bug, which Aron has fixed on >> > PHOENIX-7109. >> > However, as I tried to backport it to 5.1, I realized that PHOENIX-7024, >> > which fixes similar paging issues, is also missing from 5.1. >> > >> > I'm looking into backporting both PHOENIX-6888 and PHOENIX-7024 to 5.1. >> > It seems that PHOENIX-6888 depends on Hbase 2.3, so it would not be >> > effective for HBase 2.1 and 2.2. >> > Would skipping the hooks in 2.1 and 2.2 make things worse for those >> HBase >> > versions, or would the patch simply not be effective ? >> > Would backporting PHOENIX-6888 break anything else ? >> > >> > AFAICT, PHOENIX-7024 has no such problems, and can be backported without >> > problems. >> > >> > What do you suggest ? >> > Should we backport both patches, or just PHOENIX-7024 ? >> > >> > look >> > >> > > > -- > *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > *Email*: st...@cloudera.com > cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: > Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ >
