Re: Fault tolerant scanner returning out-of-order partitions

It's also strange that the first two rows have the same value for c79. That is extremely unlikely. I can dig in more tomorrow. - Dan On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Dan Burkert wrote: > The first three rows (including the out of order row) all fall in the same > range partition, so the issue

Re: Fault tolerant scanner returning out-of-order partitions

The first three rows (including the out of order row) all fall in the same range partition, so the issue is likely that the intra-tablet scan returned out of order results (as opposed to the client scanning tablets out of order). I'm under the same impression about SetFaultTolerant(), which is why

Fault tolerant scanner returning out-of-order partitions

Hey Dan (+CC dev in case anyone else knows about this too) I'm debugging some flakiness in alter_table-randomized-test, and ti seems like it's failing because the verification scan is returning some out of order rows, despite using "SetFaultTolerant()". Granted, fault tolerance isn't publicly guar

initial draft of security scoping document/roadmap

Hi all, Now that we've reached 1.0, one of the next big barriers to Kudu adoption is its lack of security features. I've started working on a document which tries to scope out some initial support for authentication, authorization, and data security: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cPNDTpVkIU

Re: Kudu 1.0.1 patch release

Reminder that we are going to cut the 1.0.1 RC this Friday. If you have any additional patches you want to include now is the time to speak up. Besides the issues already discussed, the following should make the cut: KUDU-1660 / 69e657

Re: Flaky tablet_history_gc-itest

Todd, I apologize for the late response -- somehow my inbox is messed up. Probably, I need to switch to use stand-alone mail application (as iMail) instead of browser-based one. Yes, I'll take a look at that. Best regards, Alexey On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > This t