[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20847?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16537045#comment-16537045
]
stack commented on HBASE-20847:
-------------------------------
bq. The locks which have already been held by parent procedures should also be
considered as held by sub procedures. This is OK as we can make sure that the
parent procedure will not release the lock before the sub procedures, as it can
only be executed again after all the sub procedures have finished.
Are we talking about the post-master crash scenario? Is the suggestion that
sub-procedures assume locks that were taken out by parent procedures?
> The parent procedure of RegionTransitionProcedure may not have the table lock
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-20847
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20847
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: proc-v2, Region Assignment
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HBASE-20847-v1.patch, HBASE-20847.patch
>
>
> For example, SCP can also schedule AssignProcedure and obviously it will not
> hold the table lock.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
