See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/2007/changes
Changes:
[tedyu] HBASE-4053 Most of the regions were added into
AssignmentManager#servers twice
[tedyu] HBASE-3904 HBA.createTable(final HTableDescriptor desc, byte [][]
splitKeys)
should be synchronous
[tedyu]
It looks like left-over crud Lars. Thanks for noting it. I made
HBASE-4068 to clean it up.
St.Ack
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Lars George lars.geo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dhruba,
Yes, but that is the one on the root dir level. I am referring to the one on
the region level.
Cheers,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Ramkrishna S Vasudevan
ramakrish...@huawei.com wrote:
I was working on the patch preparation for HBASe-4052.
Thank you for doing this.
...
Am i clear with the problem? so is it like before enabling any table do we
need to check the state of the table and if
I agree that we should be more consistent in how we get zk config
(Your original report looks like a bug Lars). I also recently tripped
over the fact that hbase uses different names for one or two zk
configs. We need to fix that too.
St.Ack
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Jesse Yates
Yeah, can you file an issue Lars. This stuff is ancient and needs to
be redone AND redone so we can do merging while table is online (there
is already an issue to do this but not revamp of these Merge classes).
The unit tests for Merge are also all junit3 and do whacky stuff to
put up multiple
I noticed this too and had a local patch. I was thinking table name
should not be mentioned at all in the descirptor... its in the region
name?
St.Ack
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for spotting this.
Fixed in TRUNK.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:06 AM,
I was thinking that perhaps the normative use case for talking to a cluster
is to specify the quorum name and path... The implicit config can be really
confusing and is out of norms compared to other data store systems. Eg MySQL
memcache etc.
On Jul 6, 2011 2:14 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
there is already an issue to do this but not revamp of these Merge
classes
I guess the issue is HBASE-1621
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
Yeah, can you file an issue Lars. This stuff is ancient and needs to
be redone AND redone so we can do merging while table
I would rather not break existing functionality. What happens when someone
downstream does a naive upgrade (it definitely happens, even though people
should read changelogs), and then their cluster goes down? Its probably
going to end up leading to a few hours searching stack traces, greping error
