[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20556?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16750473#comment-16750473
]
Jaume M commented on HIVE-20556:
--------------------------------
bq. Isn't that breaking on-the-wire-compatibility?
What is the compatibility that should be preserved? Hive can be upgraded while
the metastore remain the same? So new client should be able to speak to old
server.
bq. Also, since TBL_ID is dependent on backing database, aren't we leaking
implementation into APIs here?
The purpose of exposing this was for the client to be able to submit the table
id in this ticket HIVE-20538. What would be the problem here? The client could
figure out what database is being used by analyzing the ids?
bq. By exposing its type as a number i64 are we saying that we only support
native identity generation.
I assumed since before the strategy wasn't specified, native identity was the
one being used, like now.
> Expose an API to retrieve the TBL_ID from TBLS in the metastore tables
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-20556
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20556
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Metastore, Standalone Metastore
> Reporter: Jaume M
> Assignee: Jaume M
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 4.0.0
>
> Attachments: HIVE-20556.1.patch, HIVE-20556.10.patch,
> HIVE-20556.11.patch, HIVE-20556.12.patch, HIVE-20556.13.patch,
> HIVE-20556.14.patch, HIVE-20556.15.patch, HIVE-20556.16.patch,
> HIVE-20556.17.patch, HIVE-20556.18.patch, HIVE-20556.2.patch,
> HIVE-20556.3.patch, HIVE-20556.4.patch, HIVE-20556.5.patch,
> HIVE-20556.6.patch, HIVE-20556.7.patch, HIVE-20556.8.patch, HIVE-20556.9.patch
>
>
> We have two options to do this
> 1) Use the current MTable and add a field for this value
> 2) Add an independent API call to the metastore that would return the TBL_ID.
> Option 1 is preferable.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
