Sean Busbey commented on HBASE-20595:

that makes sense. is the "system group" treated like a normal rsgroup in terms 
of exclusivity? If so, how do we handle it and the user group needing to be 
distinct? if we just delegate it to manual operator config that means we can't 
have the rsgroup on by default ever right? we'll probably need to document 
"can't turn on rsgroup feature" as a limitation of single-node deployments.

> Remove the concept of 'special tables' from rsgroups
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-20595
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20595
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Region Assignment, rsgroup
>            Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.1.0, 1.5.0
> Regionserver groups needs to specially handle what it calls "special tables", 
> tables upon which core or other modular functionality depends. They need to 
> be excluded from normal rsgroup processing during bootstrap to avoid circular 
> dependencies or errors due to insufficiently initialized state. I think we 
> also want to ensure that such tables are always given a rsgroup assignment 
> with nonzero servers. (IIRC another issue already raises that point, we can 
> link it later.)
> Special tables include:
> * The system tables in the 'hbase:' namespace
> * The ACL table if the AccessController coprocessor is installed
> * The Labels table if the VisibilityController coprocessor is installed
> * The Quotas table if the FS quotas feature is active
> Either we need a facility where "special tables" can be registered, which 
> should be in core. Or, we institute a blanket rule that core and all 
> extensions that need a "special table" must put them into the 'hbase:' 
> namespace, so the TableName#isSystemTable() test will return TRUE for all, 
> and then rsgroups simply needs to test for that.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to