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 20:35:35 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14292373#comment-14292373
] 

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

Setconfig is a master operation, so it's local to the fate operation. This means they will
have the same view since it's the same zk reader/writer.

So I'm proposing that setconfig cannot change content in zk while fate has that table's configs
readlocked. And conversely, fate can't get a readlock while configs are being set.

> 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