> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Rohit Yadav > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Frank Zhang > Subject: Re: Storage refactor db and baremetal diversion fixes > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Edison Su <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > >> Behalf Of Rohit Yadav > >> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:57 AM > >> To: Edison Su; [email protected]; Frank Zhang > >> Subject: Storage refactor db and baremetal diversion fixes > >> > >> Hi Edison, > >> > >> Can you please take a look at schema-40t410.sql (both master and 4.1 > >> branch) and schema-410to420.sql on master. > >> This commit 18e496b057e59074476a0c65f4e19fb54c620720 removes: > >> -alter table vm_template add image_data_store_id bigint unsigned; > >> > >> Should this be in the 410to420 upgrade path, also what should be the > >> value for already existing rows, right now it's NULL? > > I put image_data_store_id in create-schema.sql, as template.sql will use > image_data_store_id. > > In 4.1 branch, it will execute 4.1-new-db-schema.sql(which has all the new > db schema) right after, create-schema.sql, but before template.sql. > > But on master branch, we move 4.1-new-db-schema.sql to db upgrade, > which is executed after template.sql, then if anybody change vm_template > db schema, the process will not work. > > Edison, you need to pull 4.1 often, there is no 4.1-new-db-schema.sql on > master or on 4.1. Since we want rolling upgrades, it will happen for both 4.1 > and 4.2
I'll remove my db change on 4.1 branch, as no body using it, so that make the db upgrade smooth. > > In case you're changing template.sql, pl. fix it as well. We don't want to > diverse the schema from 4.0 for both 4.1 and master branches. > If you want to discuss on why we want this, you can talk to Alex in your > timezone. > > Regards. > > > > >> > >> Hi Frank, > >> > >> Can you check and move the same files, for baremetal_dhcp_devices and > >> baremetal_pxe_devices tables, do we want them in 410to420 or in > 40to410? > >> > >> Regards.
