[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-26233?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17468916#comment-17468916
]
Nick Dimiduk commented on HBASE-26233:
--------------------------------------
This is great [~zhangduo] , congratulations!
Can we start a discussion on backporting it to branch-2? :D
> The region replication framework should not be built upon the general
> replication framework
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-26233
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-26233
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Umbrella
> Components: read replicas
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha-3
>
>
> At least, at the source path, where we track the edits, we should not make
> region replication rely on general replication framework.
> The difficulty here for switching to a table based storage is that, the WAL
> system and replication system highly depend on each other. There will be
> cyclic dependency if we want to store replication peer and queue data in a
> hbase table.
> And after HBASE-18070, even meta wal provider will be integrated together
> with replication system, which makes things more difficult.
> But in general, for region replication, it is not a big deal to lose some
> edits, a flush can fix everything, which means we do not so heavy tracking
> system in the general replication system.
> We should find a more light-weighted way to do region replication.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
