Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switches to String-based migration partitioning #5359

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 11, 2025

Conversation

ddanielr
Copy link
Contributor

Adds a new Migrations class to help simplify the manager code.

Also replaces DataLevel migration partitioning with a String value to allow for better user extensibility.

This PR is another subset of changes from #5195

ddanielr and others added 2 commits February 26, 2025 18:32
Move all the partitioned migration code into a separate class to cleanup
the Manager code.

Co-authored-by: Keith Turner <kturner@apache.org>
Previously the balancer code would track migrations based on a DataLevel
partition. However, there are cases where a subset of tablets could be
handled by a sub-balancer. This change supports separating the tablets
by a String value which allows for more flexibility.

Co-authored-by: Keith Turner <kturner@apache.org>
@ddanielr ddanielr added this to the 2.1.4 milestone Feb 26, 2025
Changes the MetaDataTableScanner to pull migrationSnapshot data based on
the datalevel of the target table.
ddanielr and others added 4 commits February 28, 2025 19:52
…egexTableLoadBalancerReconfigurationTest.java

Co-authored-by: Christopher L. Shannon <cshannon@apache.org>
Use the .Name() method for the DataLevel vs a hardcoded string value
Removed the RootTabletStateStore as the addition of DataLevels has
removed the need for specifying a different table name for the
MetaDataTableScanner.
@ddanielr ddanielr merged commit 65b3fe8 into apache:2.1 Mar 11, 2025
8 checks passed
@ddanielr ddanielr deleted the feature/consolidate-migrations-code branch March 11, 2025 21:21
@ddanielr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged cleanly into 2.1 and 3.1.
Main has a lot of merge conflicts so I performed a no-op merge from 3.1 to main and the actual merge will be handled in a different PR to help draw awareness to the changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants