[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20046?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16372411#comment-16372411
]
stack commented on HBASE-20046:
-------------------------------
Ouch. We good at getting hbase:meta up. Not so good making sure other tables
are up. Why you think the new table? Write rates? Being able to split it?
Thanks.
> Reconsider the meta schema change in HBASE-9465
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-20046
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20046
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Replication
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.5.0
>
>
> When implementing HBASE-9465 we added two new families to meta table, one is
> rep meta and the other is rep_position. In general I think rep_meta is OK to
> put into meta table since it records the open and close sequence id for a
> region, but for rep_position, I think it should be put into another system
> table instead of meta table.
> This should be done before we finally release 2.0.0 or 1.5.0.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
