[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
stack updated HBASE-19116: -------------------------- Attachment: HBASE-19116.branch-2.003.patch > Currently the tail of hfiles with CellComparator* classname makes it so > hbase1 can't open hbase2 written hfiles; fix > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-19116 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: HFile, migration > Reporter: stack > Assignee: stack > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-2 > > Attachments: HBASE-19116.branch-2.001.patch, > HBASE-19116.branch-2.002.patch, HBASE-19116.branch-2.003.patch > > > See tail of HBASE-19052 for discussion which concludes we should try and make > it so operators do not have to go to latest hbase version before they > upgrade, at least if we can avoid it. > The necessary change of our default comparator from KV to Cell naming has > hfiles with tails that have the classname CellComparator in them in place of > KeyValueComparator. If an hbase1 tries to open them, it will fail not having > a CellComparator in its classpath (We have name of comparator in tail because > different files require different comparators... perhaps we write an alias > instead of a class one day... TODO). HBASE-16189 and HBASE-19052 are about > trying to carry knowledge of hbase2 back to hbase1, a brittle approach making > it so operators will have to upgrade to the latest branch-1 before they can > go to hbase2. > This issue is about undoing our writing of an incompatible (to hbase1) tail, > not unless we really have to (and it sounds like we could do without writing > an incompatible tail) to see if we can avoid requiring operators go to > lastest branch-1 (we may end up needing this but lets a have a really good > reason for it if we do). > Oh, let this filing be an answer to our [~anoop.hbase]'s old high-level > question over in HBASE-16189: > bq. ...means when rolling upgrade done to 2.0, first users have to upgrade to > some 1.x versions which is having this fix and then to 2.0.. What do you guys > think Whether we should avoid this kind of indirection? cc Enis Soztutar, > Stack, Ted Yu, Matteo Bertozzi > Yeah, lets try to avoid this if we can... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)