On 11/27/2014 04:20 PM, Michael Still wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/26/2014 04:24 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
Precisely. Why is the RDBMS the thing that is used for
archival/audit logging? Why not a NoSQL store or a centralized log
facility? All that would be needed would be for us to standardize
on the format of the archival record, standardize on the things to
provide with the archival record (for instance system metadata,
etc), and then write a simple module that would write an archival
record to some backend data store.
Then we could rid ourselves of the awfulness of the shadow tables
and all of the read_deleted=yes crap.
+1000 - if we’re really looking to “do this right”, as the original
message suggested, this would be “right”. If you don’t need these
rows in the app (and it would be very nice if you didn’t), dump it
out to an archive file / non-relational datastore. As mentioned
elsewhere, this is entirely acceptable for organizations that are
“obliged” to store records for auditing purposes. Nova even already
has a dictionary format for everything set up with nova objects, so
dumping these dictionaries out as JSON would be the way to go.
OK, spec added:
https://review.openstack.org/137669
At this point I don't think we should block the cells reworking effort
on this spec. I'm happy for people to pursue this, but I think its
unlikely to be work that is completed in kilo. We can transition the
new cells databases at the same time we fix the main database.
No disagreement at all. The proposed spec is a monster one, and we can
certainly make a lot of progress in Kilo, but I wouldn't expect it to be
completed any time soon.
Best,
-jay
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
