[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16391033#comment-16391033
]
Zheng Hu commented on HBASE-19665:
----------------------------------
bq. Why not use two families? And the row key can be different...
I think you mean: Still share an single hbase:replication table , for peer
storage, we use peerId as rowkey, and its data store in peer family. and
for queue storage, we use region-server-name as the rowKey, and store queues
and wals in other seperate families . In theory, the serverName will not
conflict with peerId, so it will work.
Let me prepare the patch.v2..
> Add table based replication peers/queues storage back
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-19665
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19665
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Replication
> Reporter: Guanghao Zhang
> Assignee: Zheng Hu
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HBASE-19665.v1.patch
>
>
> We removed them after HBASE-19397. So open a issue to track this thing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
