hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Helmling <ghelml...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0 time to remove table owners?
Date Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:44:54 GMT
> On 9/26/17 11:27 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > It would be a major functional change. Someone might be relying on the
> > table ownership semantic. However, 2.0 would be the next opportunity to
> > introduce a change of this type before 3.0.
> >
> > I don't think we need table owners. It is a shortcut in the permissions
> > model which is good for usability but bad for adding complexity. Removing
> > the shortcut would make it more likely we'd see odd situations like
> where a
> > user can create a table but surprisingly lack other permissions, but that
> > would be a consequence of mismanagement of grants by cluster admins, not
> a
> > bug or functional gap introduced by removing table ownership.
> +1 well put.
+1 as well.

Table owners were originally an approximation of delegated admin
functionality -- basically you can admin what you create.

The metadata aspect  of table owners (HBASE-11996) still seems useful.
But, like Andy says, the access control aspect just adds some implicit
complexity without much benefit.  For a delegated admin scenario, making
this explicit with ADMIN permission over a specific table or namespace
would be a more manageable and more transparent approach.

Removing the built-in grants generated with table owners seems like a good
step forward.

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