[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13267958#comment-13267958
]
Phabricator commented on HBASE-5494:
------------------------------------
avf has commented on the revision "[jira] [HBASE-5494] [89-fb] Table-level
locks for schema changing operations.".
INLINE COMMENTS
src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/util/DelayInducingInjectionHandler.java:57
Good question. One drawback to adding a CountDownLatch for each event might be:
1) Thread A waits for CountDownLatch, for the same event. Thread B comes
along and counts its down.
2) Thread C also wants to wait for the instance of the event -- but in this
case, the CountDownLatch will be incremented and thread C will have to wait for
the next version of the event.
Essentially we should make a call if we allow multiple threads to wait for
the same event *or* if we allow a thread to wait for multiple instance of the
same event.
I am actually leaning in favour of the latter now, and can change this (in
our case, we only have one thread waiting for an event).
src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/util/DelayInducingInjectionHandler.java:75
@mbautin I discussed this offline with Kannan, and he agreed with my use of
this structure, but just asked me to use the "create CountDownLatch if one
doesn't exist and then call .countDown" inside the if loop (if
eventToDelayTimeMs contains the key).
Wait/notify would work, but might be more cumbersome to implement than just
using CountDownLatch.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.facebook.net/D2997
> Introduce a zk hosted table-wide read/write lock so only one table operation
> at a time
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-5494
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5494
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: stack
> Attachments: D2997.3.patch
>
>
> I saw this facility over in the accumulo code base.
> Currently we just try to sort out the mess when splits come in during an
> online schema edit; somehow we figure we can figure all possible region
> transition combinations and make the right call.
> We could try and narrow the number of combinations by taking out a zk table
> lock when doing table operations.
> For example, on split or merge, we could take a read-only lock meaning the
> table can't be disabled while these are running.
> We could then take a write only lock if we want to ensure the table doesn't
> change while disabling or enabling process is happening.
> Shouldn't be too hard to add.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
