dlmarion commented on PR #5781: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/5781#issuecomment-3250174576
> > > Seems like a good approach. Would this also prevent them from being set on resource group configs? > > > > > > No. In fact I made the comment above that we should wait to merge in #5749 first, then update this PR to handle resource group configurations > > By "handle", you mean that it _should_ prevent using table properties in RG configs in addition to system level, once updated, right? I can't imagine that we would want to allow them in RG configs if we've disallowed them at the system level, since both are basically "process level" (properties files on classpath, or groups of processes in ZK), configs rather than "data level" (table, namespace in ZK). @ctubbsii and I discussed this yesterday. I was originally thinking that #5749 would get merged in first to create the resource group configurations and then I would modify this PR to allow table properties at the resource group level. @ctubbsii suggested that we should not do this and only allow table properties at the table and namespace configuration layers, keeping properties that affect data at the table and namespace layer and properties that affect the instance and processes at the site, system, and resource group level. I'm good with @ctubbsii approach, does anyone else have thoughts about this? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
