[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11393?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15012880#comment-15012880
]
Heng Chen commented on HBASE-11393:
-----------------------------------
{quote}
Did you test this with tableCfs having namespace also included in its table
name ?
Can you update the usage in shell script so that user can know how they can
pass namespace also along with table name.
Can you also add some test where we explicitly set tableCfs having namespace
also included in its table name.
{quote}
Oh, let me do it.
{quote}
I see that you are adding tableCfs information also as data to peer id ZK node
but earlier we had a dedicated ZK node
zookeeper.znode.replication.peers.tableCFs for this. So will this be ok ?
{quote}
Oh, this is [~enis] suggestion. I think it is reasonable, we can unify them
into one znode. wdyt? :)
> Replication TableCfs should be a PB object rather than a string
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11393
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11393
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Enis Soztutar
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-11393.patch, HBASE-11393_v1.patch,
> HBASE-11393_v2.patch, HBASE-11393_v3.patch, HBASE-11393_v4.patch,
> HBASE-11393_v5.patch, HBASE-11393_v6.patch, HBASE-11393_v7.patch,
> HBASE-11393_v8.patch, HBASE-11393_v9.patch
>
>
> We concatenate the list of tables and column families in format
> "table1:cf1,cf2;table2:cfA,cfB" in zookeeper for table-cf to replication peer
> mapping.
> This results in ugly parsing code. We should do this a PB object.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
