On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvana...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Perez <thin...@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.
For projects that don't have a bunch of legacy code depending on soft deletes, I don't see any reason why you couldn't go straight to c) Vish > > [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40660/ > > -Mike Perez > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
