szehon-ho commented on code in PR #6045:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6045#discussion_r1022032530
##########
hive-metastore/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/hive/HiveCatalog.java:
##########
@@ -539,12 +577,22 @@ Database convertToDatabase(Namespace namespace,
Map<String, String> meta) {
database.setDescription(value);
} else if (key.equals("location")) {
database.setLocationUri(value);
+ } else if (key.equals(HMS_DB_OWNER)) {
+ database.setOwnerName(value);
+ } else if (key.equals(HMS_DB_OWNER_TYPE) && value != null) {
+ database.setOwnerType(PrincipalType.valueOf(value));
} else {
if (value != null) {
parameter.put(key, value);
}
}
});
+
+ if (database.getOwnerName() == null) {
+ database.setOwnerName(System.getProperty("user.name"));
Review Comment:
Hi, its probably my fault here, @haizhou-zhao had this initially but it
seemed there was some unresolved concern at the time :
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6045#discussion_r1004221149 , so I
actually asked @haizhou-zhao to follow what the table implementation uses for
consistency , and we could change both to UserGroupInformation.getCurrentUser()
later once there's consensus.
But looks like its cleared up since then, @gaborkaszab ? If so we can go
ahead and use UserGroupInformation.getCurrentUser() here and then change table
to be consistent as well? I also agree that it's more optimal.
##########
hive-metastore/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/hive/HiveCatalog.java:
##########
@@ -539,12 +577,22 @@ Database convertToDatabase(Namespace namespace,
Map<String, String> meta) {
database.setDescription(value);
} else if (key.equals("location")) {
database.setLocationUri(value);
+ } else if (key.equals(HMS_DB_OWNER)) {
+ database.setOwnerName(value);
+ } else if (key.equals(HMS_DB_OWNER_TYPE) && value != null) {
+ database.setOwnerType(PrincipalType.valueOf(value));
} else {
if (value != null) {
parameter.put(key, value);
}
}
});
+
+ if (database.getOwnerName() == null) {
+ database.setOwnerName(System.getProperty("user.name"));
Review Comment:
Hi, its probably my fault here, @haizhou-zhao had this initially but it
seemed there was some unresolved concern at the time :
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6045#discussion_r1004221149 , so I
actually asked @haizhou-zhao to follow what the table implementation uses for
consistency , and we could change both to UserGroupInformation.getCurrentUser()
later once there's consensus.
But looks like its cleared up since then, @gaborkaszab ? If so we can go
ahead and use UserGroupInformation.getCurrentUser() here and then change table
to be consistent as well? I also agree that it's more complete.
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
