[GitHub] [accumulo] ctubbsii commented on pull request #2792: closes #1377 - ensure all tables are checked ...

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ctubbsii commented on PR #2792:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2792#issuecomment-1248800663

   > > So, I'm not convinced this is the right approach.
   > 
   > What's the implication of this statement? Are you saying that we need to go back to the drawing board? If I implement your suggested changes, is this good to go?
   
   Unless the edge cases for table creation/deletion are addressed (like paying attention to table states, like Keith mentioned), then this should definitely not be merged as is. And, I wouldn't recommend its inclusion in any forked version of 1.10 either, because of the potential harmful side-effects I mentioned.
   
   If the table creation/deletion edge cases are addressed, I would have to re-review. I've only reviewed what's there, not what code changes have yet to be proposed.
   
   I'm not sure what "go[ing] back to the drawing board" would entail. It feels like we're shooting in the dark, adding a sanity check against a problem that is not well-defined.


-- 
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: notifications-unsubscribe@accumulo.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org