accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John Vines (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3530) alterTable/NamespaceProperty should use Fate locks
Date Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:04:37 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14292236#comment-14292236
] 

John Vines commented on ACCUMULO-3530:
--------------------------------------

Fate operations use readwrite locks for operations. We should use those same locks in setconfig
and the like.

> 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)

Mime
View raw message