----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60517/#review179273 -----------------------------------------------------------
sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/provider/db/service/persistent/SentryStore.java Lines 103 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60517/#comment253924> Since you are explaining the issue here, you may just refer to SENTRY-1824 for more details. Please use HTML formatting for javadoc. - Alexander Kolbasov On June 29, 2017, 3:44 p.m., Na Li wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/60517/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 29, 2017, 3:44 p.m.) > > > Review request for sentry and Alexander Kolbasov. > > > Repository: sentry > > > Description > ------- > > It would be the best if we can minimize transaction failure when two or more > transactions are making updates. Permission updates are the main issue, > getting worse with more clients. Path update is from one thread in > HMSFollower, independent on the number of clients, so it is not a big issue. > > Add synchronization for permission updates? In this way, when more than one > threads are updating the permission, only one thread will update changeID, > when it finishes, the next thread on the same Sentry server will make update. > Therefore, no transaction will fail if there is only one Sentry server. When > there are more Sentry servers, the collision will happen among the Sentry > servers, not depending on how many clients are updating Sentry, so it is more > scalable. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/provider/db/service/persistent/SentryStore.java > 9ad97bc > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60517/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Na Li > >
