[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5269?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kiran Kumar Maturi updated PHOENIX-5269:
Attachment: PHOENIX-5269.4.14-HBase-1.4.v4.patch
> PhoenixAccessController should
Could you please help me add a 5.0.1 version
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=58&projectKey=PHOENIX&view=planning.nodetail&versions=visible&epics=visible
,
it seems that I don't have the authority. Josh, Thomas
Jaanai Zhang
IndexMaintainer.buildUpdateMutation() is called from the client side for
immutable indexes and from the indexing coprocessor as well.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> -user, +dev
>
> I’d like to take a pass at updating our secondary index docs with the next
> level of detail
-user, +dev
I’d like to take a pass at updating our secondary index docs with the next
level of details. Understanding data layout is important when designing an
HBase schema, so I think users will generally be interested in how
secondary indexes do that.
Can someone point me in the direction of
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Daniel Wong reassigned PHOENIX-4845:
Assignee: Daniel Wong
> Support using Row Value Constructors in OFFSET clause to support
Andrew Purtell created PHOENIX-5279:
---
Summary: [phoenix-queryserver] Update Avatica to 1.15.0
Key: PHOENIX-5279
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5279
Project: Phoenix
Issu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5269?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kiran Kumar Maturi updated PHOENIX-5269:
Attachment: PHOENIX-5269.4.14-HBase-1.4.v3.patch
> PhoenixAccessController should
I think we have consensus, we can stop committing to the 1.2 branches from
now on.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:31 AM Vincent Poon
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:18 PM Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I would think it would be a drain on committer time to keep having to
> > acc
+1
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:18 PM Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> +1
>
> I would think it would be a drain on committer time to keep having to
> accommodate interface differences on the EOL line.
>
> > On May 10, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Thomas D'Silva
> wrote:
> >
> > Since HBase 1.2 is now end of life and
How did you identify the below issues?
As I said in the other thread, I think we should move to the latest,
working HBase release for a 5.0.1 (which is 2.0.3 AFAIK).
On 5/13/19 9:07 AM, Jaanai Zhang wrote:
Hi, folks
We decided to release a 5.0.1 that is discussed in the thread[1] and
thread[2
I'd say we update to HBase-2.0.3 as that is the latest, known-good
version. Of course, I thought the same of that for 2.0.5 up until a week
or two ago :)
Let's get a branch made and check it out.
On 5/13/19 9:00 AM, Jaanai Zhang wrote:
So we can keep the current HBase version in 5.0.1?
-
So we can keep the current HBase version in 5.0.1?
Jaanai Zhang
Best regards!
Jaanai Zhang 于2019年5月13日周一 下午8:22写道：
> +1
>
>
>Jaanai Zhang
>Best regards!
>
>
>
> Thomas D'Silva 于2019年5月10日周五 下午1:25
Hi, folks
We decided to release a 5.0.1 that is discussed in the thread[1] and
thread[2].
Since there is a lot of work to make Phoenix compatible with the newer
HBase 2.0.x(especially contains HBASE-21401),
we try to fix HBase compat in a 5.1.0 version. In 5.0.1 we might keep the
current HBase ve
+1
Jaanai Zhang
Best regards!
Thomas D'Silva 于2019年5月10日周五 下午1:25写道：
> +1 to this approach.
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:22 AM Josh Elser wrote:
>
> > After working on trying to make Phoenix compatible with >=HBase 2.0.4,
> > I'm wondering if it
14 matches
Mail list logo
