[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15106317#comment-15106317 ]
Hudson commented on PHOENIX-2591: --------------------------------- SUCCESS: Integrated in Phoenix-master #1087 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/Phoenix-master/1087/]) PHOENIX-2591 Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL (jtaylor: rev f591da44c9ee85ee7ab0fa910e3b18e649d86cdf) * phoenix-core/src/test/java/org/apache/phoenix/util/TestUtil.java * phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/execute/MutationState.java * phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/util/TransactionUtil.java > Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: PHOENIX-2591 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591 > Project: Phoenix > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: James Taylor > Assignee: James Taylor > Fix For: 4.7.0 > > Attachments: PHOENIX-2591.patch > > > Seems that the number of times we commit/rollback transactions during DDL > operations could be improved. See TransactionUtil.getTableTimestamp() for > example. There'd also be another couple when MutationState.commitWriteFence() > is called when a CREATE INDEX is performed too. > I realize we're doing this to get the transaction read pointer to "catch up" > to the current time, as we use the read pointer as our "current time" for > transactional tables. However, what would the impact be if we used the > transaction write pointer instead? > At a minimum, we need to document what we're doing before we forget. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)