Hi! It is nice to see so careful attention for my change requests. In fact they are related the same topic that Johannes mentioned. The idea of this is described there https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/db-sync-models-with-migrations .
Problems that mentioned in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82073/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/80518/ were discovered with the help of this test https://review.openstack.org/74081 that I adopted for Neutron https://review.openstack.org/76520. It helps to find a lot of bugs in Neutron database and models. Now as this change https://review.openstack.org/74081 is going to move to oslo.db all of this work is frozen. Regards, Ann On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Johannes Erdfelt <johan...@erdfelt.com>wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014, Collins, Sean <sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com> > wrote: > > I've been looking at two reviews that Ann Kamyshnikova has proposed > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82073/ > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/80518/ > > > > I think the changes are fundamentally a Good Thing™ - they appear to > > reduce the differences between the database models and their > > corresponding migrations – as well as fixing differences in the > > generated DDL between Postgres and MySQL. > > > > The only thing I'm concerned about, is how to prevent these > > inconsistencies from sneaking into the codebase in the future. The > > one review that fixes ForeignKey constraints that are missing a name > > argument which ends up failing to create indexes in Postgres – I can > > see myself repeating that mistake, it's very subtle. > > > > Should we have some sort of HACKING for database models and > > migrations? Are these problems subtle enough that they warrant > > changes to SQLAlchemy/Alembic? > > On the Nova side of things, there has been similar concerns. > > There is a nova-spec that is proposing adding a unit test to check the > schema versus the model: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/85325/ > > This should work, but I think the underlying problem is DRY based. We > should not need to declare a schema in a model and then a set of > imperative tasks to get to that point. All too often they get > unsynchronized. > > I informally proposed a different solution, moving schema migrations to > a declarative model. I wrote a proof of concept to show how something > like this would work: > > https://github.com/jerdfelt/muscle > > We already have a model written (but need some fixes to make it accurate > wrt to existing migrations), we should be able to emit ALTER TABLE > statements based on the existing schema to bring it into line with the > model. > > This also has the added benefit of allowing certain schema migrations to > be done online, while services are still running. This can significantly > reduce downtime during deploys (a big concern for large deployments of > Nova). > > There are some corner cases that do cause problems (renaming columns, > changing column types, etc). Those can either remain as traditional > migrations and/or discouraged. > > Data migrations would still remain with sqlalchemy-migrate/alembic, but > there have some proposals about solving that problem too. > > JE > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev