[openstack-dev] [oslo.db] Proposal: Get rid of deleted column

Mike Perez thingee at gmail.com
Tue Aug 20 23:15:13 UTC 2013

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya
<vishvananda at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com> wrote:
> For #1 and #2, really this sounds like another thing doing this along with
> Ceilometer. I would really like to leave this in Ceilometer and not have
> each project get more complex in having to keep track of this on their own.
> I start having fears of discrepancy bugs of what projects' audit say and
> what Ceilometer audit says.
> Have Ceilometer do audits, keep temporary logs for specified time, and
> leave it up to the ops user to collect and archive the information that's
> important to them.
> To answer your original question, I say just get rid of the column and do
> a hard delete. We didn't have Ceilometer then, so we no longer need to keep
> track in each project.
> Migration path of course should be thought of for the users that need this
> information archived if we decide to get rid of the columns.
> This was actually discussed during the summit session. The plan at that
> time was:
> a) bring back unique constraints by improving soft delete
> b) switch to archiving via shadow tables
> c) remove archiving and use ceilometer for all of the necessary parts.
> c) is going ot take a while. There are still quite a few places in nova,
> for example, that depend on accessing deleted records.
> We realized that c) was not acheivable in a single release so decided to
> do a) so we could have unique constraints until the other issues were
> solved.
> So ultimately I think we are debating things which we already have a plan
> for.
> Vish

I guess I'm still failing to see why a, b and then c as the proposed path.
I'm mainly curious because the change is being proposed in Cinder and I
still can't make sense of why. [1] I'm not saying this idea is wrong, I
just don't understand the use case yet.

For existing environments, why can't we just stop doing soft deletes and
have audits happen through Ceilometer as the agreed end goal. We can keep
around the delete column for deprecation reasons and allow time for ops to
take that information and store it how they need it.

[1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40660/

-Mike Perez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130820/5c9cd8dc/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list