On 2011-06-15 15:50, Alan Robertson wrote: > On 06/14/2011 06:03 AM, Florian Haas wrote: >> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>> Hi Alan, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote: >>>> On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote: >>>>> A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness >>>>> flag for OCF script parameters: >>>>> >>>>> Would it be wise for the for the index parameter of the SFEX ocf script >>>>> to have its unique flag set to 1 so that the crm tool (and others) would >>>>> warn if one inadvertantly tried to create two SFEX resource primitives >>>>> with the same index? >>>>> >>>>> Also, an example of the opposite, the Stonith/IPMI script, has parameters >>>>> such as interface, username and password with their unique flags set to >>>>> 1, causing erroneous warnings if you use the same interface, username or >>>>> password for multiple IPMI stonith primitives, which of course if often >>>>> the case in large clusters? >>>>> >>>> When we designed it, we intended that Unique applies to the complete set >>>> of parameters - not to individual parameters. It's like a multi-part >>>> unique key. It takes all 3 to create a unique instance (for the example >>>> you gave). >>> That makes sense. >> Does it really? Then what would be the point of having some params that >> are unique, and some that are not? Or would the tuple of _all_ >> parameters marked as unique be considered unique? >> > I don't know what you think I said, but A multi-part key to a database > is a tuple which consists of all marked parameters. You just said what > I said in a different way. > > So we agree.
Jfyi, I was asking a question, not stating an opinion. Hence the use of a question mark. So then, if the uniqueness should be enforced for a "unique key" that is comprised of _all_ the parameters marked unique in a parameter set, then what would be the correct way to express required uniqueness of _individual_ parameters? In other words, if I have foo and bar marked unique, then one resource with foo=1 and bar=2, and another with foo=1, bar=3 does not violate the uniqueness constraint. What if I want both foo and bar to be unique in and of themselves, so any duplicate use of foo=1 should be treated as a uniqueness violation? Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
