<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Perez <<a href="mailto:thingee@gmail.com">thingee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jay Pipes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaypipes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
We should take a look at look at the various entities in the various database schemata and ask the following questions:<br>
<br>
1) Do we care about archival of the entity?<br>
<br>
2) Do we care about audit history of changes to the entity?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This was actually discussed during the summit session. The plan at that time was:</div><div><br></div><div>a) bring back unique constraints by improving soft delete</div><div>b) switch to archiving via shadow tables</div><div>c) remove archiving and use ceilometer for all of the necessary parts.</div><div><br></div><div>c) is going ot take a while. There are still quite a few places in nova, for example, that depend on accessing deleted records.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>So ultimately I think we are debating things which we already have a plan for.</div><div><br></div><div>Vish</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>-Mike Perez</div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>OpenStack-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>