hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Disable HBase System tables
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:02:23 GMT
thanks, Anoop, if you can port the HBASE-10619 to branch-1, that would be
good.

Thanks
Stephen

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com> wrote:

> My bad..  Copied wrong Jira id..  It is *HBASE-10619*
>
> -Anoop-
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HBASE-13158  speaks abt this..  Sorry I missed this completely.  I will
> > work on a new patch for this.
> >
> > -Anoop-
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Jerry He <jerryjch@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The acl table and label tables are currently guarded in the
> >> AccessController or VisibilityController. As Srikanth mentioned, it is
> >> related to HBASE-13336.
> >> Should we avoid duplicate checking and make the logic/responsibility
> >> clear?
> >> The problem probably also exist for the delete/alter/modify table
> >> operations.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiangdev@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > yes, my proposed change is that do the 'tableName.isSystemTable ()'
> >> check,
> >> > instead of 'tableName.equals(TableName.META_TABLE_NAME)' - this check
> >> would
> >> > include all tables inside the hbase namespace.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Stephen
> >> >
> >> > By the way, we should rename the 'hbase' namespace to 'system'
> >> namespace to
> >> > make it clearer :-).  Now is too late :-(.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 disabling the visibility label table is going to be a bad time.
> >> > >
> >> > > Maybe just disallow for the whole hbase namespace?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sean
> >> > > On Apr 2, 2015 5:54 PM, "Stephen Jiang" <syuanjiangdev@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > In disable table, we specifically check whether it is a META
> table;
> >> if
> >> > a
> >> > > > table is a META table, we disallow the table disable.  However,
I
> >> think
> >> > > > other system tables should have the same treatment (is it possible
> >> > that a
> >> > > > namespace table is disable and the system is still functional
> >> without
> >> > > > issue?).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >     if(tableName.equals(TableName.META_TABLE_NAME)) {
> >> > > >
> >> > > >       throw new ConstraintException("Cannot disable catalog
> table");
> >> > > >
> >> > > >     }
> >> > > > I want to extend the disable-not-allowed treatment to all system
> >> > tables,
> >> > > > please let me know if you disagree.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks
> >> > > > Stephen
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message