Yes Viraj, I can release 5.1.4 Thanks, Rajeshbabu.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 10:28 AM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > I think we can also target 5.2.1 very soon, perhaps just next month, with > more CVE fixes and any other fixes if ready. > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:39 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > > > For 5.2.0, it would be great to focus on the known data integrity issues. > > We can fix non-zk registry, cover a few more CVEs by upgrading third > party > > dependencies and stabilize tests. As for the tests, they don’t seem > broken, > > but are flaky. I have got multiple builds without any test failures on PR > > for PHOENIX-7106. > > > > If this looks good to you, I can start release preparation next week. > What > > do you think, Istvan? > > > > In the meantime, I have 5.1 backport PR open, awaiting good build results > > before committing it. > > Rajeshbabu, would you like to be RM for 5.1.4 once the PR is merged? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:13 AM Istvan Toth <st...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Yes, they basically make the non-ZK registries unusable. > >> (at least the connectionless problems should be fixed.) > >> > >> I hope to have the final fix for those sometime next week. > >> > >> Also have we looked at potential CVE issues on master recently ? > >> > >> I think we should also look at the most flakey tests I linked above, > >> and fix them or at least make sure that they are test issues and not > real > >> bugs. > >> > >> Istvan > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 PM Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > 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 > > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >