[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-23832?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17102225#comment-17102225
]
Anoop Sam John commented on HBASE-23832:
----------------------------------------
I believe we deprecated the config in 1.x.. As per the rule, we can remove the
config completely in 3.0 then. But I don't see we ever doing such thing for
config names. Should we? What you say? [~stack], [~zhangduo], [~busbey]? It
will raise more Qs and not that easy like the API removal. API removal, the
user will come to know about the removal. The config name how/whether we should
handle usage of old config. I mean even in 3.x. Or we should never remove old
config names?
> Old config hbase.hstore.compactionThreshold is ignored
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-23832
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-23832
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Anoop Sam John
> Assignee: Sambit Mohapatra
> Priority: Critical
>
> In 2.x we added new name 'hbase.hstore.compaction.min' for this. Still for
> compatibility we allow the old config name and honor that in code
> {code}
> minFilesToCompact = Math.max(2, conf.getInt(HBASE_HSTORE_COMPACTION_MIN_KEY,
> /*old name*/ conf.getInt("hbase.hstore.compactionThreshold", 3)));
> {code}
> But if hbase.hstore.compactionThreshold alone is configured by user, there is
> no impact of that.
> This is because in hbase-default.xml we have the new config with a value of
> 3. So the call conf.getInt(HBASE_HSTORE_COMPACTION_MIN_KEY) always return a
> value 3 even if it is not explicitly configured by customer and instead used
> the old key.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
