> On June 14, 2016, 6:31 p.m., Sergey Shelukhin wrote:
> > metastore/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/metastore/HiveMetaStore.java, 
> > line 365
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48159/diff/4-5/?file=1405612#file1405612line365>
> >
> >     two nested synchornized-s on the same thing.
> >     Also nit: is it possible to have an object to sync on, rather than 
> > syncing on something with global visiblity

removed a nesting. Retaining sync on HMSHandler.class, as threadPool itself is 
static.


> On June 14, 2016, 6:31 p.m., Sergey Shelukhin wrote:
> > metastore/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/metastore/HiveMetaStore.java, 
> > line 2369
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48159/diff/4-5/?file=1405612#file1405612line2369>
> >
> >     hmm...

ThreadPool changes in add_partitions_pspec also got missed out in earlier 
patch. This was wrong patch which got uploaded. Uploading the correct one now.


- Rajesh


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/48159/#review137561
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 17, 2016, 5:56 a.m., Rajesh Balamohan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/48159/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 17, 2016, 5:56 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for hive and Ashutosh Chauhan.
> 
> 
> Bugs: HIVE-13901
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-13901
> 
> 
> Repository: hive-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Depending on FS, creating external tables & adding partitions can be 
> expensive (e.g msck which adds all partitions).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   common/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/conf/HiveConf.java cc95008 
>   metastore/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/metastore/HiveMetaStore.java 
> c0827ea 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48159/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rajesh Balamohan
> 
>

Reply via email to