We retry (2) until it succeeds or master is stopped (in which case the new master takes over), no?
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Stephen Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > In DisableTableHandler#handleDisableTable(), we do the following: > (1). Set the table state to DISABLING > (2). Try to mark all regions of table (based on in-memory state of the > active master) to offline > (3). If 2 succeed, then set the table state to DISABLED > > My question is if (2) failed, it would continue to co-processor post > operation and complete the process() call. This will leave the table in > DISABLING state without letting user know that the operation actually > fails. Is this desired behavior? > > Thanks > Stephen >
