Hey Ray, Thanks for looking into this. I cannot explain why we would support a custom name for the backup table. I am in favor of deprecating the custom name feature and treating the table as a system table.
Thanks, Nick On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 20:22, Ray Mattingly <rmattin...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > >
