abhioncbr commented on code in PR #10877:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/10877#discussion_r1224148162
##########
pinot-segment-local/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/segment/local/utils/TableConfigUtils.java:
##########
@@ -607,24 +606,6 @@ static void
validateInstancePartitionsTypeMapConfig(TableConfig tableConfig) {
}
}
- /**
- * Detects whether both replicaGroupStrategyConfig and
replicaGroupPartitionConfig are set for a given
- * table. Validation fails because the table would ignore
replicaGroupStrategyConfig
- * when the replicaGroupPartitionConfig is already set.
- */
- @VisibleForTesting
- static void validatePartitionedReplicaGroupInstance(TableConfig tableConfig)
{
- if (tableConfig.getValidationConfig().getReplicaGroupStrategyConfig() ==
null
- || MapUtils.isEmpty(tableConfig.getInstanceAssignmentConfigMap())) {
- return;
- }
- for (Map.Entry<String, InstanceAssignmentConfig> entry:
tableConfig.getInstanceAssignmentConfigMap().entrySet()) {
- boolean isNullReplicaGroupPartitionConfig =
entry.getValue().getReplicaGroupPartitionConfig() == null;
- Preconditions.checkState(isNullReplicaGroupPartitionConfig,
Review Comment:
I think we introduced the validation to handle the scenario like what would
happen in-case provided `partitionColumn` value is different in
`ReplicaGroupStrategyConfig` and `ReplicaGroupPartitionConfig`?
Looking at the validation logic I can see it's backward incompatible. Can we
instead of removing it make sure that if both config has `partitionColumn`
value then it should be same otherwise fail?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
