HIVE-29096: Enhance the metatool updateLocation for multiple table or…

[dengzhhu653]

… serde properties

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Enhance the metatool updateLocation to accept multiple properties

Why are the changes needed?

Sometimes we need to update multiple properties in case of NameNode switch. For example for Iceberg tables, both of the metadata_location and previous_metadata_location should update

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

Yes

How was this patch tested?

The new added UT,
Running the example in the jira.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
7 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
1 Security Hotspot
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Aggarwal-Raghav]

@dengzhhu653, for the iceberg usecase mentioned in description, I believe updating location will not fully resolve the problem as metadata (snapshot.avro, metadata.json etc) also needs to be updated (unless there is some internal solution to update the metadata) explicitly.

Reference: apache/iceberg#1617 , I think we need to implement this proceduce in hive
https://iceberg.apache.org/docs/latest/spark-procedures/#rewrite_table_path
CC @deniskuzZ

But this PR will be helpful post updating the metadata in iceberg.

[dengzhhu653]

@dengzhhu653, for the iceberg usecase mentioned in description, I believe updating location will not fully resolve the problem as metadata (snapshot.avro, metadata.json etc) also needs to be updated (unless there is some internal solution to update the metadata) explicitly.

Reference: apache/iceberg#1617 , I think we need to implement this proceduce in hive https://iceberg.apache.org/docs/latest/spark-procedures/#rewrite_table_path CC @deniskuzZ

But this PR will be helpful post updating the metadata in iceberg.

Thank you @Aggarwal-Raghav for pointing it out. Not sure if the rewrite_table_path will update the metadata_location in HMS table, looks it's not, as it uses the register_table to load the new copied table in the last step.

[deniskuzZ]

@Aggarwal-Raghav yes, you are right, that won't work for iceberg, at least not until apache/iceberg#13141 is resolved.