----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64820/#review194770 -----------------------------------------------------------
sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/service/thrift/HMSFollower.java Line 263 (original), 263 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64820/#comment273747> should we get rid of this call for .getCurrentNotificationId? - Na Li On Jan. 4, 2018, 5:06 p.m., Arjun Mishra wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/64820/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 4, 2018, 5:06 p.m.) > > > Review request for sentry, Alexander Kolbasov, Brian Towles, kalyan kumar > kalvagadda, Na Li, Sergio Pena, and Vadim Spector. > > > Repository: sentry > > > Description > ------- > > After steady state, a full snapshot is triggered by mainly 2 cases > > 1. Sentry is "ahead" > 2. Sentry is behind > Case 1 has a dependency on NOTIFICATION_SEQUENCE table. This is not reliable > as it was observed that sometimes NOTIFICATION_SEQUENCE and NOTIFICATION_LOG > are not in sync. As a result of this unnecessary full snapshots can be > triggered. > The solution is to eliminate this check. Sentry can never be ahead of HMS. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/service/thrift/HMSFollower.java > aa1b6a31c > > sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/service/thrift/TestHMSFollower.java > edde886a7 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64820/diff/4/ > > > Testing > ------- > > mvn -f sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/pom.xml test > > > Thanks, > > Arjun Mishra > >
