Hi, On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> wrote: > Some of the existing constraints are wrong, some does not exist. > On the 3 bug reports (see original message), I have submitted patches > to add/fix the FK constraint, but we will loose data. > The big advantage is... not to loose these data :)
That is not an unambiguous advantage: one's "losing" patron data is another's "better protecting patron privacy". Also, merging the two tables will impose a cost on every user that has written reports that query the borrowers table and will be faced with the task of determining if they need to tack on "AND NOT deleted" clauses to the queries. That said, in Evergreen patron records do have a boolean flag that expresses logical deletion status. That approach has generally worked, but at the cost of requiring more code to fully delete and/or anonymize records for patrons who no longer have any relationship with the library. Overall, I'm neutral on the design question of using one table or two; I'm more dubious about the potential for disruption if we make a change, since we're not starting from scratch here. I note that the three bugs you've cited are concerned with the deletion of *staff* user accounts. A more minimal change might be to treat staff accounts specially and devise a way to mark them inactive instead of deleting them. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Infrastructure and Added Services Manager Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: [email protected] direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
