[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14292143#comment-14292143
]
Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3530:
---------------------------------------------
No, I don't have a particular case in mind. I just want to understand the
mechanism by which this proposal will "help ensure consistency".
At first glance, it does not seem to me that fate locks have anything to do
with ZK property consistency.
The use case you describe seems like it would be satisfied with ACCUMULO-1568
> alterTable/NamespaceProperty should use Fate locks
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3530
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: John Vines
>
> Fate operations, such as clone table, have logic in place to ensure
> consistency as the operation occurs. However, operaitons like
> alterTableProperty can still interfere because there is no locking done. We
> should add identical locking to these methods in MasterClientServiceHandler
> to help ensure consistency.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
