Hey all, At my company we've been doing some work with incremental backups, and some work with the balancer to support system table isolation. In the crossover between these two efforts, we discovered that the backup:system table is not considered a system table. In my opinion, it should be.
In https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/6842 I proposed that we add some special logic for the backup:system table to both designate it as a system table, and also allow it to take snapshots (because this is a requirement of the backups project, and I'd imagine this is why we didn't make it a system table to begin with). My proposal does not adequately cover the case where an operator has specified a value for `hbase.backup.system.table.name` in their configuration — a feature which allows you to customize the name of your backup system table. Can anyone tell me why an operator might want to customize their system table name? I'm inclined to just delete support for this. I'm also open to other ideas. Thanks, Ray
