Any thoughts here? If no one has big objection, I'd probably err on the side of simplicity: marking the default backups table as a system table and deleting support for custom backup tables.
On 2025/04/02 14:02:35 Ray Mattingly wrote: > 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 >
