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.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:
The table owner is used by AC, Is BC broken if we remove the table owner?
BTW, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11996 try to make the
owner carry more information, such as email and webpage.
On 2017-09-26 12:07, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
In HBASE-6188 we deprecated table owners for the 0.95 release. What do
folks think about removing it for the 2.0 release?
