[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19543?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16454387#comment-16454387
]
Mike Drob commented on HBASE-19543:
-----------------------------------
[~Apache9] - any further thoughts on this?
> Is there a better way to get this same information?
> Abstract a replication storage interface to extract the zk specific code
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-19543
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19543
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: proc-v2, Replication
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.1.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-19543-HBASE-19397-v1.patch,
> HBASE-19543-HBASE-19397-v2.patch, HBASE-19543-HBASE-19397-v3.patch,
> HBASE-19543-HBASE-19397.patch, HBASE-19543-HBASE-19397.patch
>
>
> For now, we will do sanity checks at the same time when updating replication
> peer. But this is not a safe way for procedure based replication peer
> modification.
> For the old zk watcher way, the only thing is updating the data on zk, so if
> the data is updated and then we crashes, there is no problem.
> For the new procedure way, we need to trigger refresh by ourselves after
> updating zk. If we crashes after the updating and before we record the state
> change of the procedure, we may fail with IllegalArgumentException when we
> execute the procedure next time since the data on zk has already been updated.
> So the current way is to do sanity checks in PRE_PEER_MODIFICATION state, and
> in UPDATE_STORAGE state we will not do sanity checks any more, just
> update(overwrite) the peer storage.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
