Thanks Istvan. I would like to cut 5.2 branch from master. Do you see non-ZK registry for MapReduce jobs as blocker for 5.2.0?
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 12:24 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > ParallelPhoenixConnectionFailureTest.testExecuteQueryChainFailure also > fails too often, especially when the test host is slow and/or the load is > high. > On my fast laptop, I can semi-reliably break it by running > mvn clean verify -am -pl phoenix-core -DnumForkedUT=20 > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 9:19 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > > > We're making progress. > > I can see that Viraj has just landed PHOENIX-7601, and Rajeshbabu has > > released Omid 1.1.1. > > Thank you! > > > > At the moment, the following outstanding issues are on my radar: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7191 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7193 > > > > These are bugs in my non-ZK registry implementation, which were found > > during HBase 3 work. > > I have some PRs up, but they may not be complete. I will push for reviews > > once I have the HBase 3 tests passing, and possibly updated them based on > > that. > > > > We also have a number of very flakey tests, see: > > > > > > > https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/Phoenix/job/Phoenix-mulitbranch/job/master/test_results_analyzer/ > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:09 AM Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > >> As Viraj wrote, those are just plans. > >> If HBase 3 won't be released by the time the other features are ready, > >> then it won't make it into 5.3. > >> If other major features are ready by that time, then they will be > >> included. (though we are not aware of any now) > >> > >> As for the new major version, in the past Phoenix didn't have a > >> compatibility module system, > >> so a new branch was required, which didn't support older HBases. Also, > >> the API changes between HBase 1.x and 2.x were much larger, > >> The HBase 2 and 3 API are pretty similar, apart from the removal of > >> deprecated 1.x APIs. (and the protobuf/protocol thing, which requires a > >> rather ugly hack). > >> > >> I will start the discussion on how we can add HBase 3 support as soon as > >> I have a working POC patch. > >> > >> We could call 5.3 6.0 instead, after all Phoenix isn't using a strict > >> semantic versioning, but then 6.0 would also support HBase 2. > >> If we do not come to a consensus on the version name, we can always have > >> a vote on it. > >> > >> I think that the main motivation is that the community wants to maintain > >> as few branches as possible. > >> > >> Istvan > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:02 PM Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am not sure how close HBase 3.0 is. Even if it is only less than one > >>> year away, the adoption would be low at the beginning. I don't think > 5.3 > >>> should wait for that. And traditionally, Phoenix would have a major > >>> release to support the HBase major release (4.x for HBase 1.x and 5.x > for > >>> HBase 2.x), in this case, we are talking about Phoenix 6.0 for HBase > 3.0. > >>> > >>> Maybe we should adopt the HBase release model: master branch for next > >>> major > >>> release (6.0) and branch-5.x branch for next 5.x minor release and > >>> branch-5.2 for 5.2 minor release. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Stephen > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:50 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Sounds good. > >>> > > >>> > Planned major changes for 5.3.0: > >>> > > >>> > 1. JSON support. > >>> > 2. HBase 3.0 support. > >>> > 3. CDC feature (leveraging uncovered global index framework and JSON > >>> > support). > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM Kadir Ozdemir > >>> > <kozde...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > I suggest including another major change for 5.3, Phoenix CDC, > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7001. The PR for it > >>> will > >>> > be > >>> > > posted soon. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:35 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks Istvan! I agree with your points. It’s really been a while > >>> we > >>> > are > >>> > > > talking about releasing 5.2.0 and yet due to bandwidth issues, > >>> unable > >>> > to > >>> > > do > >>> > > > so. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I agree to getting these fixes out, cut 5.2 and start the release > >>> work > >>> > > and > >>> > > > in the meantime I also need to prepare 5.1 backport. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > For 5.3, let's plan HBase 3.0 support and JSON as major changes. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:17 PM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Hi! > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > In my opinion cutting 5.2 now only makes sense IF we DO NOT > plan > >>> to > >>> > > > release > >>> > > > > the outstanding big features (like JSON) in 5.2. , otherwise > it's > >>> > just > >>> > > > > extra work to maintain more branches. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Having said that, releasing a 5.2 and 5.1.4 with the data > >>> integrity > >>> > > fixes > >>> > > > > real soon, and then releasing 5.3 in a few months with JSON, > and > >>> any > >>> > > > other > >>> > > > > outstanding big features > >>> > > > > that are close to being finished (and HBase 3.0 support, if > it's > >>> > ready > >>> > > by > >>> > > > > then) would not be a bad idea. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On the CLDR side the only outstanding big feature which could > >>> impact > >>> > > > > Viraj's integrity work is HBase 3.0 support, and even that is > >>> only > >>> > > > because > >>> > > > > it may require some larger refactors of existing code, not > >>> because it > >>> > > > would > >>> > > > > change the actual behaviour or algorithms. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Phoenix used to have several minor releases per year, the > current > >>> > state > >>> > > > of > >>> > > > > extreme longevity of 5.1 and several big new features being > >>> added to > >>> > it > >>> > > > > (like uncovered indexes) is not ideal. > >>> > > > > Releasing 5.2 and 5.3 relatively close together could be a > >>> return to > >>> > a > >>> > > > > quicker cadence for minor releases, which could also help with > >>> the > >>> > > public > >>> > > > > image and adoption of Phoenix. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > We were talking about releasing 5.2 at least a year ago, and I > >>> have > >>> > > > started > >>> > > > > working on that then, but then emergencies have come up at > >>> $dayjob, > >>> > > and I > >>> > > > > could not see that through. > >>> > > > > (So I am in part responsible for the lack of minor releases) > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > regards > >>> > > > > Istvan > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:35 PM Viraj Jasani < > >>> vjas...@apache.org> > >>> > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 now makes sense? > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > No problem with that. I can cut 5.2 branch by the end of this > >>> week > >>> > or > >>> > > > at > >>> > > > > > the start of next week. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > If there is any very big change or feature ready for merge to > >>> > master > >>> > > > > branch > >>> > > > > > with PR approvals already in place, please do let me know so > >>> that I > >>> > > can > >>> > > > > > help collaborate on how best we can get it merged without > >>> impacting > >>> > > 5.2 > >>> > > > > > release if required. My main motivation was for any big > change > >>> to > >>> > go > >>> > > > > > through newly introduced tests so that we know that anything > >>> > > additional > >>> > > > > is > >>> > > > > > not broken, and also to prioritize for upcoming 5.2.0 and > 5.1.4 > >>> > > > releases. > >>> > > > > > Moreover, there are several PRs getting merged on the master > >>> > branch, > >>> > > we > >>> > > > > can > >>> > > > > > continue that as long as they are not very big changes, which > >>> might > >>> > > > > require > >>> > > > > > significant time to understand any correlation with data > >>> integrity > >>> > > > > issues. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The PR is also ready for review with some additional cases > >>> fixed > >>> > last > >>> > > > > week: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1736__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!D4OVjUp2EWW2BqhGnBxsapDX_AHsibRphIpoFBWfgRsd3dsAikrFLo6PGxdTzGbSXJJ2fJ0j9mcz3asXMXo$ > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Depending on the review bandwidth, I am hopeful we should be > >>> good > >>> > to > >>> > > > land > >>> > > > > > them sooner. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:31 AM Rushabh Shah > >>> > > > > > <rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Thank you Viraj for initiating this thread. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Given the critical nature of these issues, I would like > to > >>> > > propose > >>> > > > > that > >>> > > > > > > we > >>> > > > > > > treat this as a high priority for the upcoming 5.2.0 > >>> release, and > >>> > > not > >>> > > > > > > include any other feature or big change to master branch > >>> until we > >>> > > > merge > >>> > > > > > > this. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Do you think cutting 5.2.0 now makes sense? This will > enable > >>> > other > >>> > > > > > > developers to merge features into master branch (5.3.0) and > >>> you > >>> > can > >>> > > > > take > >>> > > > > > > some more time to make sure we cover all the corner cases > >>> for the > >>> > > > data > >>> > > > > > > integrity issues that you uncovered. > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 6:38 PM Viraj Jasani < > >>> vjas...@apache.org> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Sounds good, thanks Rajeshbabu. I will try to get the > >>> first PR > >>> > > out > >>> > > > > next > >>> > > > > > > > week and while reviews happen in parallel, will try to > get > >>> 5.1 > >>> > PR > >>> > > > > soon. > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 8:49 PM rajeshb...@apache.org < > >>> > > > > > > > chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi Viraj, > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Would be better to include the changes in 5.1.4 as in > >>> any > >>> > way > >>> > > it > >>> > > > > > will > >>> > > > > > > > take > >>> > > > > > > > > at least 3-4 days to complete the omid release. > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > > > > > Rajeshbabu. > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 5:06 AM Viraj Jasani < > >>> > > vjas...@apache.org> > >>> > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Kadir and Geoffrey for your replies!! > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect 5.1.4, which is also listed as > >>> a Fix > >>> > > > > Version > >>> > > > > > > for > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it also needs to be ported to 5.1. Once the > >>> master PR > >>> > is > >>> > > > up > >>> > > > > > for > >>> > > > > > > > > final > >>> > > > > > > > > > review, I would start working on the backport PR. > >>> > > > > > > > > > We just need some more additional testing to ensure > old > >>> > > client > >>> > > > > > (e.g. > >>> > > > > > > > > 5.1.3) > >>> > > > > > > > > > is compatible with the new server with the changes. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hence, yes it is now a blocker for upcoming 5.1.4 as > >>> well > >>> > > since > >>> > > > > > 5.1.4 > >>> > > > > > > > RC > >>> > > > > > > > > > preparation is still pending (while Omid release is > in > >>> > > > progress). > >>> > > > > > > > > > Otherwise if 5.1.4 was ready for release, I would > have > >>> > > proposed > >>> > > > > > > > immediate > >>> > > > > > > > > > 5.1.5 release to include the changes proposed with > >>> > > > PHOENIX-7106. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:08 PM Geoffrey Jacoby < > >>> > > > > gjac...@apache.org > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that data integrity issues are a higher > >>> priority > >>> > > than > >>> > > > > > > feature > >>> > > > > > > > > > > development, so I also support the decision. The > fact > >>> > that > >>> > > > > > several > >>> > > > > > > of > >>> > > > > > > > > the > >>> > > > > > > > > > > major remaining 5.2 features are currently being > >>> > developed > >>> > > in > >>> > > > > > > > > > long-running > >>> > > > > > > > > > > feature branches also helps, as work can continue > >>> there > >>> > at > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > > > cost > >>> > > > > > > > of > >>> > > > > > > > > a > >>> > > > > > > > > > > rebase later. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > How does this affect 5.1.4, which is also listed as > >>> a Fix > >>> > > > > Version > >>> > > > > > > for > >>> > > > > > > > > > > PHOENIX-7106? From the bug description it also > sounds > >>> > like > >>> > > > > 5.1.3 > >>> > > > > > > and > >>> > > > > > > > > the > >>> > > > > > > > > > > forthcoming .4 are affected, since we have > >>> server-side > >>> > > paging > >>> > > > > in > >>> > > > > > > 5.1. > >>> > > > > > > > > > (Feel > >>> > > > > > > > > > > free to move that to a separate thread if you feel > it > >>> > > should > >>> > > > > be a > >>> > > > > > > > > > separate > >>> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.) Should this be a blocker for releasing > >>> > 5.1.4? > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Geoffrey > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:06 PM Kadir Ozdemir < > >>> > > > > > > > > > > ka...@gsuite.cloud.apache.org> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > Being a database, Phoenix has to make sure that > the > >>> > data > >>> > > > > stays > >>> > > > > > on > >>> > > > > > > > > disk > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > intact and its queries return correct data. In > this > >>> > case, > >>> > > > > > Phoenix > >>> > > > > > > > > fails > >>> > > > > > > > > > > to > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > return correct data for some queries if their > scans > >>> > > > > experience > >>> > > > > > > > region > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > movement. Now that we know these data integrity > >>> issues > >>> > > and > >>> > > > > how > >>> > > > > > to > >>> > > > > > > > > > > reproduce > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > them, fixing them should be our first priority. > >>> So, I > >>> > > fully > >>> > > > > > > support > >>> > > > > > > > > > this > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 10:58 PM Viraj Jasani < > >>> > > > > > vjas...@apache.org > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to bring PHOENIX-7106 > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > < > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-7106__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!FZG5sv55IC1NqItQLY7GKWgUG2Do0gSta01gOiSdd36Dx3XHGtQx4M3c9visVXIt9DctPQzS-orob9vhzrCfVA$ > >>> > > > > > > > > to everyone's > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention here and brief about the data > integrity > >>> > > issues > >>> > > > > that > >>> > > > > > > we > >>> > > > > > > > > have > >>> > > > > > > > > > > in > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > various coprocessors. Majority of the issues > are > >>> > > related > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > > > the > >>> > > > > > > > > fact > >>> > > > > > > > > > > that > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we do not return valid rowkey for certain > >>> queries. If > >>> > > any > >>> > > > > > > region > >>> > > > > > > > > > moves > >>> > > > > > > > > > > in > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the middle of the scan, the HBase client relies > >>> on > >>> > the > >>> > > > last > >>> > > > > > > > > returned > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > rowkey > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and accordingly changes the scan boundaries > >>> while the > >>> > > > > scanner > >>> > > > > > > is > >>> > > > > > > > > > > getting > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > reset to continue the scan operation. If the > >>> region > >>> > > does > >>> > > > > not > >>> > > > > > > > move, > >>> > > > > > > > > > scan > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > is > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > not expected to return invalid data, however if > >>> the > >>> > > > region > >>> > > > > > > moves > >>> > > > > > > > in > >>> > > > > > > > > > the > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > middle of ongoing scan operation, scan would > >>> return > >>> > > > > > > > > invalid/incorrect > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > data > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > causing data integrity issues. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the critical nature of these issues, I > >>> would > >>> > like > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > > > > > propose > >>> > > > > > > > > > that > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > we > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > treat this as a high priority for the upcoming > >>> 5.2.0 > >>> > > > > release, > >>> > > > > > > and > >>> > > > > > > > > not > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > include any other feature or big change to > master > >>> > > branch > >>> > > > > > until > >>> > > > > > > we > >>> > > > > > > > > > merge > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > this. The PR is still not ready as additional > >>> changes > >>> > > are > >>> > > > > > still > >>> > > > > > > > in > >>> > > > > > > > > my > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > local, requiring rebase with the current > master. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would get back to this discuss thread as soon > >>> as > >>> > the > >>> > > PR > >>> > > > > and > >>> > > > > > > the > >>> > > > > > > > > doc > >>> > > > > > > > > > > are > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > updated with the latest findings so far. The > >>> changes > >>> > > > > include > >>> > > > > > > many > >>> > > > > > > > > of > >>> > > > > > > > > > > our > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > coproc scanner implementations and hence it > would > >>> > > require > >>> > > > > > > > > significant > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > review as well. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if we can hold on to merging > >>> any > >>> > > > feature > >>> > > > > or > >>> > > > > > > big > >>> > > > > > > > > > > change > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > to > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > master branch until this gets in so as to not > >>> > > complicate > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > merging/rebasing. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Once this is merged to the master branch, I > would > >>> > like > >>> > > to > >>> > > > > cut > >>> > > > > > > 5.2 > >>> > > > > > > > > > > branch > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > from master and we can move forward with 5.2.0 > >>> > release. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if this looks good or if you > >>> have > >>> > > any > >>> > > > > > other > >>> > > > > > > > high > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > priority work for 5.2.0. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *István Tóth* | Sr. Staff Software Engineer > >> *Email*: st...@cloudera.com > >> cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> > >> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> > >> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: > >> Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: > >> Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> > >> ------------------------------ > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > >
