virajjasani commented on code in PR #1884:
URL: https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1884#discussion_r1618076149
##########
phoenix-core-server/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/hbase/index/IndexRegionObserver.java:
##########
@@ -1308,6 +1345,19 @@ public void
postBatchMutateIndispensably(ObserverContext<RegionCoprocessorEnviro
try {
if (success) {
context.currentPhase = BatchMutatePhase.POST;
+ for (int i = 0; i < miniBatchOp.size(); i++) {
+ BatchMutateContext.UpdateStatus updateStatus =
context.getUpdateStatus(i);
+ if
(BatchMutateContext.UpdateStatus.UPDATE.equals(updateStatus)) {
+ byte[] retVal = PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(1);
+ Cell cell = PhoenixKeyValueUtil.newKeyValue(
+ miniBatchOp.getOperation(i).getRow(),
+ EMPTY_BYTE_ARRAY, EMPTY_BYTE_ARRAY, 0, retVal, 0,
+ retVal.length);
+ Result result = Result.create(new
ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(cell)));
+ miniBatchOp.setOperationStatus(i,
+ new OperationStatus(OperationStatusCode.SUCCESS,
result));
+ }
+ }
Review Comment:
While that is true, i was thinking of two cases:
1. If there is a bug at server side, and the client starts receiving null
Result object always, we would not know the difference b/ server returning null
object by intention vs the buggy behavior causing override to what server is
supposed to send.
2. In future, when we need to introduce JDBC API returning Result object
with values, we anyways need to incorporate this logic.
How about we do this: keep the above code same, but wrap it within if
condition:
`if(context.hasAtomic && miniBatchOp.size() == 1)`
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
