[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5269?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kiran Kumar Maturi updated PHOENIX-5269:
Attachment: PHOENIX-5269.4.14-HBase-1.4.v4.patch
> PhoenixAccessController
Could you please help me add a 5.0.1 version
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=58=PHOENIX=planning.nodetail=visible=visible
,
it seems that I don't have the authority. Josh, Thomas
Jaanai Zhang
Best regards!
Josh
IndexMaintainer.buildUpdateMutation() is called from the client side for
immutable indexes and from the indexing coprocessor as well.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> -user, +dev
>
> I’d like to take a pass at updating our secondary index docs with the next
> level of
-user, +dev
I’d like to take a pass at updating our secondary index docs with the next
level of details. Understanding data layout is important when designing an
HBase schema, so I think users will generally be interested in how
secondary indexes do that.
Can someone point me in the direction of
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Daniel Wong reassigned PHOENIX-4845:
Assignee: Daniel Wong
> Support using Row Value Constructors in OFFSET clause to
Andrew Purtell created PHOENIX-5279:
---
Summary: [phoenix-queryserver] Update Avatica to 1.15.0
Key: PHOENIX-5279
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5279
Project: Phoenix
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5269?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kiran Kumar Maturi updated PHOENIX-5269:
Attachment: PHOENIX-5269.4.14-HBase-1.4.v3.patch
> PhoenixAccessController
I think we have consensus, we can stop committing to the 1.2 branches from
now on.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:31 AM Vincent Poon
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:18 PM Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I would think it would be a drain on committer time to keep having to
> >
+1
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:18 PM Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> +1
>
> I would think it would be a drain on committer time to keep having to
> accommodate interface differences on the EOL line.
>
> > On May 10, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Thomas D'Silva
> wrote:
> >
> > Since HBase 1.2 is now end of life and
How did you identify the below issues?
As I said in the other thread, I think we should move to the latest,
working HBase release for a 5.0.1 (which is 2.0.3 AFAIK).
On 5/13/19 9:07 AM, Jaanai Zhang wrote:
Hi, folks
We decided to release a 5.0.1 that is discussed in the thread[1] and
I'd say we update to HBase-2.0.3 as that is the latest, known-good
version. Of course, I thought the same of that for 2.0.5 up until a week
or two ago :)
Let's get a branch made and check it out.
On 5/13/19 9:00 AM, Jaanai Zhang wrote:
So we can keep the current HBase version in 5.0.1?
So we can keep the current HBase version in 5.0.1?
Jaanai Zhang
Best regards!
Jaanai Zhang 于2019年5月13日周一 下午8:22写道：
> +1
>
>
>Jaanai Zhang
>Best regards!
>
>
>
> Thomas D'Silva 于2019年5月10日周五
Hi, folks
We decided to release a 5.0.1 that is discussed in the thread[1] and
thread[2].
Since there is a lot of work to make Phoenix compatible with the newer
HBase 2.0.x(especially contains HBASE-21401),
we try to fix HBase compat in a 5.1.0 version. In 5.0.1 we might keep the
current HBase
+1
Jaanai Zhang
Best regards!
Thomas D'Silva 于2019年5月10日周五 下午1:25写道：
> +1 to this approach.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:22 AM Josh Elser wrote:
>
> > After working on trying to make Phoenix compatible with >=HBase 2.0.4,
> > I'm wondering if
PHOENIX-5266 is now committed for 4.14.2 branch.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:36 AM William Shen
wrote:
> Not sure if this would be the right thread to attach this discussion: do we
> plan to also release 4.14.x patch for the CDH branches?
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:12 PM Thomas D'Silva
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
