sequenceid is not scoped to the region. Ergo mvcc should be too?
That is not necessary, strictly speaking.
IMO, just say no to more configs. When would someone want 'inconsistent scanners'? (In my experience, users do not play with configs in 98.1745% of cases – smile).
That is ok, but in 1.8265% cases when you do need config you normally really need it
It can be on by default, but at least for the first version the new functionality should be easy to disable if needed.
....unless mvcc and seqId are merged)
Would this issue be better if above work is done first?
Not much. After examining stuff I'd say it almost doesn't matter. Except maybe some more work adding mvcc to WAL, but that's not much.
...Recovery will have to make use of mvcc when replaying the edit to new server.
This work is ongoing over in @jeffrey zhong replay wal effort?
It will have to go into both that and old replay I guess, similar to nonces. There's also HBASE-10227, which is related.
mvcc is about giving you a consistent view on a row only. This work is to deal with the case where you have a wide row and you have already passed the client the first half of a row, a crash happens, and you need to return to the client the second half of the row?
Actually, mvcc currently gives you a consistent view of the region, in theory (unless there's some glitch in code). All updates in the region are mvcc-ordered.
A section in doc. on implications of not having this change fixed and then the 'cost' of this fix going in would help.
Will add. What do you mean by cost?