On 12-Apr 15:25, Rodrigo Duarte wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:47 PM, David Stanek wrote:
>
> > On 12-Apr 14:30, Rodrigo Duarte wrote:
> > > Just to illustrate the discussion, we have a bug fix that currently tries
> > > to drop a FK between the federation and identity
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:47 PM, David Stanek wrote:
> On 12-Apr 14:30, Rodrigo Duarte wrote:
> > Just to illustrate the discussion, we have a bug fix that currently tries
> > to drop a FK between the federation and identity subsystems [1].
> >
> > [1]
On 12-Apr 14:30, Rodrigo Duarte wrote:
> Just to illustrate the discussion, we have a bug fix that currently tries
> to drop a FK between the federation and identity subsystems [1].
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445505/
I think this highlights one of my problems with the current
Just to illustrate the discussion, we have a bug fix that currently tries
to drop a FK between the federation and identity subsystems [1].
The previous fix for this bug (which has been merged and had the backport
abandoned) took advantage of the FK in order to cascade delete federated
users when
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:28 AM, David Stanek wrote:
> [tl;dr I want to remove the artificial restriction of not allowing FKs
> between
> subsystems and I want to stop FK enforcement in code.]
>
> The keystone code architecture is pretty simple. The data and
> functionality
[tl;dr I want to remove the artificial restriction of not allowing FKs between
subsystems and I want to stop FK enforcement in code.]
The keystone code architecture is pretty simple. The data and functionality are
divided up into subsystems. Each subsystem can be configured to use a different