Apache9 commented on pull request #2570: URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/2570#issuecomment-713259579
On a high level design, we used to have a `hbase.meta.replicas.use` config to control whether to make use meta replicas at client side. Do we want to deprecate this config and let our new configs rule here? Just asking. For me, I think the scope of `hbase.meta.replicas.use` is too wide, as it will impact all the client operations on meta(not sure if we have hacked all the places but at least it is designed to). After reviewing the PR, I think our approach here is only for the locator related logic right? This is also what I expect. In general, I think there are 3 ways we access meta table at client side: 1. Locator related logic. This is the most critical path at client side and also makes the most pressure on meta table. 2. Admin related logic. We have delegated most of the operaations through master but there are still some places we will access meta directly. But admin operation is expected to be low frequent so I do not think we need to deal with it here. 3. Users access meta table directly by their own. This is controlled by user written code so I do not think we need to deal with it either, users should take care of it by their own. I think only 1 is what we really care here, so I suggest that, we just narrow the scope of the newly introduced configs to be locator only(maybe by adding 'locator' keyword in the config name), and consider it first before `hbase.meta.replicas.use` in the locator related logic. So users do not need to set `hbase.meta.replicas.use` to true to enable this feature, just select the LB mode. If the new config is disabled(set to None maybe), then we honor the old `hbase.meta.replicas.use` config. In general, I think the abstraction and trick here are both good. Setting the replica id directly on Query is a straight forward way to archive our goal here, and the chooser or selector is also a good abstraction. The only concern is how to implement the 'fallback to primary' logic as we need to pass down from the rpc retrying caller of the actual exception type, anyway, this can be done later. And I suggest we just make this PR against master branch, it is only client side change and whether we have implement the meta region replication should not impact the code. Why I suggest this is that, the code for master and branch-2 will be different, as on branch-2, the sync client has its own logic to do region locating, which is not well constructed I believe(we expose a bunch of locating methods in ClusterConnection interface and use it everywhere). So if we want to include this feature in 2.4.0, we'd better make this PR against master, and also backport it to branch-2 ASAP. Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
