Sailesh Mukil has posted comments on this change. Change subject: IMPALA-4671: Replace kudu::ServicePool with one that uses Impala threads ......................................................................
Patch Set 1: > Why not make a separate implementation of a service pool, rather > than modify Kudu's? See > https://github.com/henryr/Impala/commit/1e1810dad63b821d3d530d09debf47e3a8f4a570 > for an example of how that could work. Then you have a much better > chance of integrating the service pool with Impala's observability > subsystems (again, there are examples in that commit). Thanks for the suggestion and the code pointer, Henry! The way I see it, there are some pros and cons to having a parallel ServicePool implementation. Pros: * Better observability. (Huge win) * We avoid modifying more Kudu code. Cons: * We need to periodically check against kudu::ServicePool if there were any bugs and re-implement the fix on our side. (Not too bad, but still a task) * This might be obsolete after we standardize on a utils library between Impala and Kudu. (But this may take a while to happen) * Requires more time to implement and review. Given these, I'm still leaning towards your suggestion of having an Impala native ServicePool. Let me go through your patch before I make a call. In the mean time, other reviewers should feel free to weigh in. -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/8094 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: Ibb75c91d4c754f136bcb4b51dd66e2d933b14b35 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Project: Impala-ASF Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: Sailesh Mukil <sail...@cloudera.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Sailesh Mukil <sail...@cloudera.com> Gerrit-HasComments: No
