[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14292405#comment-14292405
]
Keith Turner commented on ACCUMULO-3530:
----------------------------------------
bq. we observed was that while a clone was in progress, a table had an iterator
configuration removed.
If this requires multiple operations (because there are multiple properties),
even if each remove operation is synchronized w.r.t. to clone, there may still
be interleavings that lead to undesirable outcomes.
> alterTable/NamespaceProperty should use Fate locks
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3530
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: John Vines
>
> Fate operations, such as clone table, have logic in place to ensure
> consistency as the operation occurs. However, operaitons like
> alterTableProperty can still interfere because there is no locking done. We
> should add identical locking to these methods in MasterClientServiceHandler
> to help ensure consistency.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
