For 5.2.0 release, hadoop is bumped to 3.2.4. I have merged the change to master and 5.2 branches. Thank you Istvan!
Awaiting pre-commit build results before creating 5.2.0 RC. On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > Istvan, is it possible to get hadoop version bumped with 5.2.1? That would > provide sufficient time to focus on resolving any issues that arise? Or you > have already run tests with new hadoop version on hbase 2.5 profile? > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:38 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The 2.4.0 drop is committed. >> Since there was no consensus on the 5.2.0 removal, I've kept that. >> >> Regarding the Hadoop version update: >> I have not made as much progress with testing as I hoped. >> I have reduced the scope of PHOENIX-7216 to just the 2.5 profile, as that >> does not need more testing, and I want to get at least the latest Hadoop >> patch releases into 5.2.0/5.1.4. >> >> I also see a new commons-compress version update by dependabot. >> >> >> Istvan >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:24 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 for dropping support for 2.4.0. >>> For 2.5.0-2.5.3, I think we might need more opinion? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:12 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Nothing stimulates the mind like an upcoming release: >>>> Since we have not yet released a 5.2 version which supports HBase 2.4.0 >>>> or pre 2.5.4 HBase versions, we could drop support for those. >>>> I have opened separate tickets for both: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7218 for 2.4.0 >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7219 for 2.5.3 >>>> >>>> I don't think anyone will miss 2.4.0 support, but we may want to keep >>>> HBase 2.5.0-2.5.3 as 2.5.3 is only a year old. >>>> >>>> Please share your opinion here or on the tickets. >>>> >>>> Istvan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 7:50 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree, this is a few lines (if it works) which takes no time to >>>>> backport, so we need not hold up cutting the release branch for this. >>>>> >>>>> The HBase 2.5 and 2.5.0 profiles work fine with Hadoop 3.2.4, as >>>>> expected, so updating those is kind of a non-brainer. >>>>> >>>>> I see many errors on the 2.4.0 and 2.4 profile, but I'm not yet sure >>>>> if those are simply flakey, or if they are caused by the newer Hadoop. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't run the tests with Hadoop 3.3 yet. My HBase 3 WIP branch >>>>> seems to work fine with it, but HBase 3 itself is built with Hadoop 3.3, >>>>> so >>>>> that's a different situation. >>>>> >>>>> I will report back when I have more results. >>>>> >>>>> Istvan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:23 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Sure let's go for it. I understand downstreamers are not happy with >>>>>> CVEs coming from our artifacts that were released in 2022. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 6:05 PM rajeshb...@apache.org < >>>>>> chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Would be better to bump up Hadoop to 3.3.x I feel which has minimal >>>>>>> vulnerabilities compared to Hadoop 3.2.4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Rajeshbabu. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 7:25 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Sure it sounds good to create PR for version upgrades while we are >>>>>>> getting >>>>>>> > close to releasing 5.2.0 and 5.1.4. >>>>>>> > However, if the build has unexpected test failures, we can cut 5.2 >>>>>>> first, >>>>>>> > and focus on stabilizing the upgrade changes on master branch PR >>>>>>> rather >>>>>>> > than 5.2 branch, allowing faster release. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Some new features like CDC and JSON support will anyway need 5.3 >>>>>>> release >>>>>>> > soon. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:54 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > This comment >>>>>>> > > < >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1810#issuecomment-1945998086> >>>>>>> > got >>>>>>> > > me thinking. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Most of the community (i.e. SFDC and CLDR) does not particularly >>>>>>> care >>>>>>> > about >>>>>>> > > Hadoop and HBase dependency versions, as these are meant to be >>>>>>> overridden >>>>>>> > > anyway, >>>>>>> > > and we both build our own binaries. >>>>>>> > > However, for downstream projects that use Phoenix, old >>>>>>> CVE-ridden Hadoop >>>>>>> > > versions in the public maven artifacts can be a problem. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > While we cannot influence CVEs coming from Hadoop and HBase >>>>>>> (technically >>>>>>> > we >>>>>>> > > can, but it would be a bad idea to tamper with non-direct >>>>>>> dependency >>>>>>> > > versions), >>>>>>> > > we can at least make sure that we use reasonably new Hadoop >>>>>>> versions for >>>>>>> > > building Phoenix (and including those in the public artifacts) >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Hbase branch-2.4 uses Hadoop 3.1.3 by default, but it switches >>>>>>> to 3.2.0 >>>>>>> > > when being built on JDK11+. >>>>>>> > > Hbase branch-2.5 uses Hadoop 3.2.4. (but we still use 3.2.3) >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Based on the above, I think that we should bump the default >>>>>>> Hadoop >>>>>>> > version >>>>>>> > > to 3.2.4 for each supported HBase profile. >>>>>>> > > The main reason we stick to the Hbase Hadoop versions is that >>>>>>> we've often >>>>>>> > > been bitten by binary incompatibilities >>>>>>> > > between Hadoop minor versions, but I think that using the latest >>>>>>> 3.2 >>>>>>> > point >>>>>>> > > release should be safe. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > If there are any problems, the tests will find them, most of >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> > > incompatibilities manifest in minicluster anyway. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > What do you think ? >>>>>>> > > Can you think of anything that this would break ? >>>>>>> > > We can also discuss going straight to 3.3.x, but we can >>>>>>> certainly run >>>>>>> > some >>>>>>> > > tests at least to see the results. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > I have opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7216 >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> > > I suggest treating this as an 5.2 blocker (at least until we >>>>>>> decide not >>>>>>> > to) >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Istvan >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:49 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > > I have committed PHOENIX-7191 (thanks for the review, Viraj). >>>>>>> > > > I have also put up a PR < >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1810> >>>>>>> > > for >>>>>>> > > > PHOENIX-7193. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I was not able to test them comprehensively, as I am still >>>>>>> struggling >>>>>>> > > with >>>>>>> > > > some issues with HBase 3 where simple GETs >>>>>>> > > > initiated from a coprocessor hang until they time out, but I >>>>>>> wanted to >>>>>>> > > get >>>>>>> > > > the known fixes in to unblock 5.2. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > Istvan >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:24 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >> We didn't really have such branches for past releases (that I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> > > >> followed), but we could change the practice. >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> When I acted as an RM, I didn't feel the need to branch >>>>>>> early, but if >>>>>>> > it >>>>>>> > > >> helps your planned workflow, then sure. >>>>>>> > > >> At least it would remind us to actually complete the release >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> > > >> reasonable amount of time. >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> Istvan >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:30 AM Viraj Jasani < >>>>>>> vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> No worries, that’s fine, both 5.2.0 and 5.1.4 can wait for >>>>>>> non-zk >>>>>>> > > >>> registry >>>>>>> > > >>> fixes for a week or so. >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> On the other hand, how about we still cut 5.2 branch now and >>>>>>> keep >>>>>>> > > >>> backporting changes landing on master branch to 5.2 if >>>>>>> necessary. >>>>>>> > Once >>>>>>> > > >>> non-zk registries are fixed, I can start with 5.2.0 release >>>>>>> > > preparation. >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 11:28 PM Istvan Toth < >>>>>>> st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > Thank you, Viraj, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > 5.1.4 also has the non-ZK registries feature, and has the >>>>>>> same bugs >>>>>>> > > as >>>>>>> > > >>> 5.2 >>>>>>> > > >>> > in that code. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 7:00 PM Viraj Jasani < >>>>>>> vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > Sure no worries, we can wait a few more days. >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > In the meantime, I have merged the backport PR on 5.1 >>>>>>> branch for >>>>>>> > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> data >>>>>>> > > >>> > > integrity fixes. Once omid dependency change is in, I >>>>>>> believe we >>>>>>> > > are >>>>>>> > > >>> good >>>>>>> > > >>> > > to start with 5.1.4. >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > Thank you Rajeshbabu for volunteering to take it up. >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 1:28 AM Istvan Toth < >>>>>>> st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> I appreciate the drive to get 5.2.0 out of the door, >>>>>>> but I would >>>>>>> > > >>> prefer >>>>>>> > > >>> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> have a few more days to fix the registry issues, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> and run some tests on them before cutting the branch, >>>>>>> Viraj. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> The non-ZK registry support is one of the bigger new >>>>>>> features, >>>>>>> > and >>>>>>> > > >>> I'd >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> prefer not to have known breaking bugs in the release. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> Can we target Friday or the next Monday for the cut ? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> Istvan >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 10:07 AM rajeshb...@apache.org >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > Yes Viraj, I can release 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > Thanks, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > Rajeshbabu. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 10:28 AM Viraj Jasani < >>>>>>> > vjas...@apache.org >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> I think we can also target 5.2.1 very soon, perhaps >>>>>>> just next >>>>>>> > > >>> month, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> more CVE fixes and any other fixes if ready. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:39 PM Viraj Jasani < >>>>>>> > > vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > For 5.2.0, it would be great to focus on the known >>>>>>> data >>>>>>> > > >>> integrity >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> issues. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > We can fix non-zk registry, cover a few more CVEs >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> > > upgrading >>>>>>> > > >>> > third >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> party >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > dependencies and stabilize tests. As for the >>>>>>> tests, they >>>>>>> > > don’t >>>>>>> > > >>> seem >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> broken, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > but are flaky. I have got multiple builds without >>>>>>> any test >>>>>>> > > >>> failures >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> on >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> PR >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > for PHOENIX-7106. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > If this looks good to you, I can start release >>>>>>> preparation >>>>>>> > > next >>>>>>> > > >>> > week. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> What >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > do you think, Istvan? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > In the meantime, I have 5.1 backport PR open, >>>>>>> awaiting good >>>>>>> > > >>> build >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> results >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > before committing it. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > Rajeshbabu, would you like to be RM for 5.1.4 once >>>>>>> the PR >>>>>>> > is >>>>>>> > > >>> > merged? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:13 AM Istvan Toth < >>>>>>> > > st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> Yes, they basically make the non-ZK registries >>>>>>> unusable. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> (at least the connectionless problems should be >>>>>>> fixed.) >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> I hope to have the final fix for those sometime >>>>>>> next week. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> Also have we looked at potential CVE issues on >>>>>>> master >>>>>>> > > >>> recently ? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> I think we should also look at the most flakey >>>>>>> tests I >>>>>>> > > linked >>>>>>> > > >>> > above, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> and fix them or at least make sure that they are >>>>>>> test >>>>>>> > issues >>>>>>> > > >>> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > not >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> real >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> bugs. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> Istvan >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 PM Viraj Jasani < >>>>>>> > > >>> vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > Thanks Istvan. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I would like to cut 5.2 branch from master. Do >>>>>>> you see >>>>>>> > > >>> non-ZK >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> registry >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > MapReduce jobs as blocker for 5.2.0? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 12:24 AM Istvan Toth < >>>>>>> > > >>> st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > ParallelPhoenixConnectionFailu >>>>>> >>>>>> reTest.testExecuteQueryChainFailure >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> also >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > fails too often, especially when the test >>>>>>> host is slow >>>>>>> > > >>> and/or >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> load is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > high. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > On my fast laptop, I can semi-reliably break >>>>>>> it by >>>>>>> > > running >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > mvn clean verify -am -pl phoenix-core >>>>>>> -DnumForkedUT=20 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 9:19 AM Istvan Toth < >>>>>>> > > >>> st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > We're making progress. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > I can see that Viraj has just landed >>>>>>> PHOENIX-7601, >>>>>>> > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> Rajeshbabu >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> has >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > released Omid 1.1.1. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > Thank you! >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > At the moment, the following outstanding >>>>>>> issues are >>>>>>> > on >>>>>>> > > >>> my >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> radar: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7191 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7193 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > These are bugs in my non-ZK registry >>>>>>> implementation, >>>>>>> > > >>> which >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> were >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> found >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > during HBase 3 work. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > I have some PRs up, but they may not be >>>>>>> complete. I >>>>>>> > > will >>>>>>> > > >>> > push >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > reviews >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > once I have the HBase 3 tests passing, and >>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>> > > >>> updated >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> them >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> based >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > on >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > that. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > We also have a number of very flakey tests, >>>>>>> see: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/Phoenix/job/Phoenix-mulitbranch/job/master/test_results_analyzer/ >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:09 AM Istvan Toth >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> st...@cloudera.com> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> As Viraj wrote, those are just plans. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> If HBase 3 won't be released by the time >>>>>>> the other >>>>>>> > > >>> features >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> are >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> ready, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> then it won't make it into 5.3. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> If other major features are ready by that >>>>>>> time, >>>>>>> > then >>>>>>> > > >>> they >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> will >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> be >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> included. (though we are not aware of any >>>>>>> now) >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> As for the new major version, in the past >>>>>>> Phoenix >>>>>>> > > >>> didn't >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> have a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> compatibility module system, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> so a new branch was required, which >>>>>>> didn't support >>>>>>> > > >>> older >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> HBases. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > Also, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> the API changes between HBase 1.x and 2.x >>>>>>> were much >>>>>>> > > >>> larger, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> The HBase 2 and 3 API are pretty similar, >>>>>>> apart >>>>>>> > from >>>>>>> > > >>> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> removal of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> deprecated 1.x APIs. (and the >>>>>>> protobuf/protocol >>>>>>> > > thing, >>>>>>> > > >>> > which >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> requires >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> rather ugly hack). >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> I will start the discussion on how we can >>>>>>> add >>>>>>> > HBase 3 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> support as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> soon >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> I have a working POC patch. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> We could call 5.3 6.0 instead, after all >>>>>>> Phoenix >>>>>>> > > isn't >>>>>>> > > >>> > using >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> strict >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> semantic versioning, but then 6.0 would >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> > support >>>>>>> > > >>> HBase >>>>>>> > > >>> > 2. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> If we do not come to a consensus on the >>>>>>> version >>>>>>> > name, >>>>>>> > > >>> we >>>>>>> > > >>> > can >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> always >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > have >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> a vote on it. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> I think that the main motivation is that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> > > community >>>>>>> > > >>> > wants >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > maintain >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> as few branches as possible. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> Istvan >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:02 PM Stephen >>>>>>> Jiang < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > syuanjiang...@gmail.com >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> I am not sure how close HBase 3.0 is. >>>>>>> Even if it >>>>>>> > is >>>>>>> > > >>> only >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> less >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> than >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > one >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> year away, the adoption would be low at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> > > >>> beginning. I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> don't >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> think >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > 5.3 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> should wait for that. And >>>>>>> traditionally, Phoenix >>>>>>> > > >>> would >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> have a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> major >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> release to support the HBase major >>>>>>> release (4.x >>>>>>> > for >>>>>>> > > >>> HBase >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> 1.x >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> 5.x >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> HBase 2.x), in this case, we are talking >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> > > >>> Phoenix 6.0 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> HBase >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > 3.0. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> Maybe we should adopt the HBase release >>>>>>> model: >>>>>>> > > master >>>>>>> > > >>> > branch >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> next >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> major >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> release (6.0) and branch-5.x branch for >>>>>>> next 5.x >>>>>>> > > minor >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> release >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> branch-5.2 for 5.2 minor release. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> Thanks >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> Stephen >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:50 PM Viraj >>>>>>> Jasani < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> vjas...@apache.org >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > Sounds good. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > Planned major changes for 5.3.0: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > 1. JSON support. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > 2. HBase 3.0 support. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > 3. CDC feature (leveraging uncovered >>>>>>> global >>>>>>> > index >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> framework >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > JSON >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > support). >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM Kadir >>>>>>> Ozdemir >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > <kozde...@salesforce.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > I suggest including another major >>>>>>> change for >>>>>>> > > 5.3, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> Phoenix >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> CDC, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7001. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> The PR >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> will >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > be >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > posted soon. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:35 AM Viraj >>>>>>> Jasani < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> vjas...@apache.org >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > Thanks Istvan! I agree with your >>>>>>> points. >>>>>>> > It’s >>>>>>> > > >>> really >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> been a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > while >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > are >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > talking about releasing 5.2.0 and >>>>>>> yet due to >>>>>>> > > >>> > bandwidth >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> issues, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> unable >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > do >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > so. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > I agree to getting these fixes out, >>>>>>> cut 5.2 >>>>>>> > > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > start >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > release >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> work >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > in the meantime I also need to >>>>>>> prepare 5.1 >>>>>>> > > >>> backport. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > For 5.3, let's plan HBase 3.0 >>>>>>> support and >>>>>>> > JSON >>>>>>> > > >>> as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> major >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > changes. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:17 PM >>>>>>> Istvan Toth >>>>>>> > < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> st...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Hi! >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > In my opinion cutting 5.2 now >>>>>>> only makes >>>>>>> > > >>> sense IF >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> we DO >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> NOT >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > plan >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > release >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > the outstanding big features >>>>>>> (like JSON) >>>>>>> > in >>>>>>> > > >>> 5.2. , >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> otherwise >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > it's >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > just >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > extra work to maintain more >>>>>>> branches. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Having said that, releasing a 5.2 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> > 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> integrity >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > fixes >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > real soon, and then releasing 5.3 >>>>>>> in a few >>>>>>> > > >>> months >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> JSON, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> any >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > other >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > outstanding big features >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > that are close to being finished >>>>>>> (and >>>>>>> > HBase >>>>>>> > > >>> 3.0 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> support, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> if >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > it's >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > ready >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > by >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > then) would not be a bad idea. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > On the CLDR side the only >>>>>>> outstanding big >>>>>>> > > >>> feature >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> which >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> could >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> impact >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Viraj's integrity work is HBase >>>>>>> 3.0 >>>>>>> > support, >>>>>>> > > >>> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> even >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> that is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> only >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > because >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > it may require some larger >>>>>>> refactors of >>>>>>> > > >>> existing >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> code, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> not >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> because it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > would >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > change the actual behaviour or >>>>>>> algorithms. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Phoenix used to have several minor >>>>>>> > releases >>>>>>> > > >>> per >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> year, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > current >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > state >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > extreme longevity of 5.1 and >>>>>>> several big >>>>>>> > new >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> features >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> being >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> added to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > (like uncovered indexes) is not >>>>>>> ideal. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Releasing 5.2 and 5.3 relatively >>>>>>> close >>>>>>> > > >>> together >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> could >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> be a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> return to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > quicker cadence for minor >>>>>>> releases, which >>>>>>> > > >>> could >>>>>>> > > >>> > also >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> help >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > with >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > public >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > image and adoption of Phoenix. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > We were talking about releasing >>>>>>> 5.2 at >>>>>>> > > least a >>>>>>> > > >>> > year >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> ago, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> have >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > started >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > working on that then, but then >>>>>>> emergencies >>>>>>> > > >>> have >>>>>>> > > >>> > come >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> up at >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> $dayjob, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > and I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > could not see that through. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > (So I am in part responsible for >>>>>>> the lack >>>>>>> > of >>>>>>> > > >>> minor >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> releases) >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > regards >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Istvan >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:35 PM >>>>>>> Viraj >>>>>>> > > Jasani >>>>>>> > > >>> < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 >>>>>>> now makes >>>>>>> > > >>> sense? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > No problem with that. I can cut >>>>>>> 5.2 >>>>>>> > branch >>>>>>> > > >>> by >>>>>>> > > >>> > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> end of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > this >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> week >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > or >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > at >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the start of next week. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > If there is any very big change >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> > feature >>>>>>> > > >>> ready >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> merge >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > master >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > branch >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > with PR approvals already in >>>>>>> place, >>>>>>> > please >>>>>>> > > >>> do >>>>>>> > > >>> > let >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> me >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> know >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > so >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> that I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > can >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > help collaborate on how best we >>>>>>> can get >>>>>>> > it >>>>>>> > > >>> > merged >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> without >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> impacting >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > 5.2 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > release if required. My main >>>>>>> motivation >>>>>>> > > was >>>>>>> > > >>> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> any >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> big >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > change >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > go >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > through newly introduced tests >>>>>>> so that >>>>>>> > we >>>>>>> > > >>> know >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > anything >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > additional >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > not broken, and also to >>>>>>> prioritize for >>>>>>> > > >>> upcoming >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> 5.2.0 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > releases. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Moreover, there are several PRs >>>>>>> getting >>>>>>> > > >>> merged >>>>>>> > > >>> > on >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > master >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > branch, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > can >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > continue that as long as they >>>>>>> are not >>>>>>> > very >>>>>>> > > >>> big >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> changes, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > which >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> might >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > require >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > significant time to understand >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> > > >>> correlation >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> integrity >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > issues. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > The PR is also ready for review >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> > some >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> additional >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> cases >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> fixed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > last >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > week: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1736__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!D4OVjUp2EWW2BqhGnBxsapDX_AHsibRphIpoFBWfgRsd3dsAikrFLo6PGxdTzGbSXJJ2fJ0j9mcz3asXMXo$ >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Depending on the review >>>>>>> bandwidth, I am >>>>>>> > > >>> hopeful >>>>>>> > > >>> > we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> should >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > be >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> good >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > land >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > them sooner. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at >>>>>>> 11:31 AM Rushabh >>>>>>> > > >>> Shah >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > <rushabh.s...@salesforce.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> invalid> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Thank you Viraj for >>>>>>> initiating this >>>>>>> > > >>> thread. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Given the critical nature >>>>>>> of these >>>>>>> > > >>> issues, I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> would >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> like >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > propose >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > treat this as a high priority >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>> > > >>> upcoming >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> 5.2.0 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> release, and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > not >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > include any other feature or >>>>>>> big >>>>>>> > change >>>>>>> > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> master >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> branch >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> until we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > merge >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > this. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 >>>>>>> now makes >>>>>>> > > >>> sense? >>>>>>> > > >>> > This >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> will >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > enable >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > other >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > developers to merge features >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> > master >>>>>>> > > >>> > branch >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> (5.3.0) >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> you >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > can >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > take >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > some more time to make sure >>>>>>> we cover >>>>>>> > all >>>>>>> > > >>> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> corner >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> cases >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> for the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > integrity issues that you >>>>>>> uncovered. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at >>>>>>> 6:38 PM Viraj >>>>>>> > > >>> Jasani < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Sounds good, thanks >>>>>>> Rajeshbabu. I >>>>>>> > will >>>>>>> > > >>> try >>>>>>> > > >>> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> get >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> first PR >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > out >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > next >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > week and while reviews >>>>>>> happen in >>>>>>> > > >>> parallel, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> will >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> try >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > get >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> 5.1 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > PR >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > soon. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at >>>>>>> 8:49 PM >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> rajeshb...@apache.org < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi Viraj, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Would be better to >>>>>>> include the >>>>>>> > > >>> changes in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> any >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > way >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > will >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > take >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > at least 3-4 days to >>>>>>> complete the >>>>>>> > > omid >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> release. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Rajeshbabu. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at >>>>>>> 5:06 AM >>>>>>> > Viraj >>>>>>> > > >>> > Jasani >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > vjas...@apache.org> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Kadir and >>>>>>> Geoffrey for >>>>>>> > > >>> your >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> replies!! >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect >>>>>>> 5.1.4, >>>>>>> > > which >>>>>>> > > >>> is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> also >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> listed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> a Fix >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Version >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it also needs to >>>>>>> be ported >>>>>>> > to >>>>>>> > > >>> 5.1. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> Once >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> master PR >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > up >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > final >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > review, I would start >>>>>>> working on >>>>>>> > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> backport >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> PR. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > We just need some more >>>>>>> > additional >>>>>>> > > >>> > testing >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> ensure >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > old >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > client >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > (e.g. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > 5.1.3) >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > is compatible with the >>>>>>> new >>>>>>> > server >>>>>>> > > >>> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> changes. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hence, yes it is now a >>>>>>> blocker >>>>>>> > for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> upcoming >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> well >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > since >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > 5.1.4 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > RC >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > preparation is still >>>>>>> pending >>>>>>> > > (while >>>>>>> > > >>> Omid >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> release is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > progress). >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise if 5.1.4 was >>>>>>> ready for >>>>>>> > > >>> > release, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> would >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > have >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > proposed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > immediate >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 5.1.5 release to >>>>>>> include the >>>>>>> > > changes >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> proposed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> with >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > PHOENIX-7106. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at >>>>>>> 3:08 PM >>>>>>> > > >>> Geoffrey >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> Jacoby < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > gjac...@apache.org >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that data >>>>>>> integrity >>>>>>> > > issues >>>>>>> > > >>> > are a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> higher >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> priority >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > than >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > feature >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > development, so I >>>>>>> also support >>>>>>> > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> decision. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> The >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > fact >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > several >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > major remaining 5.2 >>>>>>> features >>>>>>> > are >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> currently >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> being >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > developed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > long-running >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > feature branches also >>>>>>> helps, >>>>>>> > as >>>>>>> > > >>> work >>>>>>> > > >>> > can >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> continue >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> there >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > at >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > cost >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > rebase later. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect >>>>>>> 5.1.4, >>>>>>> > > which >>>>>>> > > >>> is >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> also >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> listed >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > as >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> a Fix >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > Version >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? From >>>>>>> the bug >>>>>>> > > >>> description >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> also >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > sounds >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > like >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > 5.1.3 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > forthcoming .4 are >>>>>>> affected, >>>>>>> > > >>> since we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> have >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> server-side >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > paging >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > 5.1. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > (Feel >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > free to move that to a >>>>>>> > separate >>>>>>> > > >>> thread >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> if >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> you >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > feel >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > it >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > should >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > be a >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > separate >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.) Should >>>>>>> this be a >>>>>>> > > >>> blocker >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> for >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > releasing >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > 5.1.4? >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Geoffrey >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 >>>>>>> at 5:06 PM >>>>>>> > > >>> Kadir >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> Ozdemir < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ka...@gsuite.cloud.apache.org >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Being a database, >>>>>>> Phoenix >>>>>>> > has >>>>>>> > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > make >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> sure >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > stays >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > on >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > disk >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > intact and its >>>>>>> queries >>>>>>> > return >>>>>>> > > >>> > correct >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> data. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> In >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > this >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > case, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Phoenix >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > fails >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > return correct data >>>>>>> for some >>>>>>> > > >>> queries >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> if >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> their >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > scans >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > experience >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > region >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > movement. Now that >>>>>>> we know >>>>>>> > > these >>>>>>> > > >>> > data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> integrity >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> issues >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > and >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > how >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > reproduce >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > them, fixing them >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>> > > our >>>>>>> > > >>> > first >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> priority. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> So, I >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > fully >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > support >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > this >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal. >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> > > 10:58 PM >>>>>>> > > >>> > Viraj >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> Jasani < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > vjas...@apache.org >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to >>>>>>> bring >>>>>>> > > >>> PHOENIX-7106 >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > < >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7106__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!FZG5sv55IC1NqItQLY7GKWgUG2Do0gSta01gOiSdd36Dx3XHGtQx4M3c9visVXIt9DctPQzS-orob9vhzrCfVA$ >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > to everyone's >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention here >>>>>>> and brief >>>>>>> > > >>> about the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> data >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > integrity >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > issues >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > we >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > have >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > in >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > various >>>>>>> coprocessors. >>>>>>> > > >>> Majority of >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> issues >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > are >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > related >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > to >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > fact >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > that >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we do not return >>>>>>> valid >>>>>>> > > rowkey >>>>>>> > > >>> for >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>>
