On 05/15/2012 12:05 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: > > OTOH I find the metadata proposal in another table too much > complicated. Why not storing what metadata in the meter.payload field > in the same table (e.g. as a JSON string)? I would be much simpler to store the metadata in the resource_id field which could be renamed into resource field. Instead of resource_id=134123 we could have resource={ 'id': 134123, 'name': 'foobar', 'flavor': 'm1.small' etc.. } There would be no need for versioning, format, separate table, etc. etc. The only convention would be that it's a hash with at least one field : the id of the resource. The rest is metadata.
It will use a lot of disk space with highly redundant information. Cheers -- Loïc Dachary Chief Research Officer // eNovance labs http://labs.enovance.com // ✉ l...@enovance.com ☎ +33 1 49 70 99 82 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp