On 11/20/2015 3:00 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 20/11/2015 17:36, Matt Riedemann a écrit :
On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/20/15 at 09:51am, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I *don't* see a
Le 20/11/2015 17:36, Matt Riedemann a écrit :
On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/20/15 at 09:51am, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I *don't* see any DB APIs for deleting instance actions.
Kind
On Nov 20, 2015, at 6:18, Sean Dague wrote:
> instance_actions seems extremely useful, and at the ops meetups I've
> been to has been one of the favorite features because it allows and easy
> interface for "going back in time" to figure out what happened.
Agreed, we're using it because it's such
On 11/20/2015 11:36 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>> On 11/20/15 at 09:51am, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> I *don't* see any DB APIs for
On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/20/15 at 09:51am, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I *don't* see any DB APIs for deleting instance actions.
Kind of an important difference there. Jay got it at
On 11/20/15 at 09:51am, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I *don't* see any DB APIs for deleting instance actions.
Kind of an important difference there. Jay got it at least. :)
Were we just planning on instance
On 11/20/2015 8:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I *don't* see any DB APIs for deleting instance actions.
Kind of an important difference there. Jay got it at least. :)
Were we just planning on instance_actions living forever in the database?
Shoul
On 11/17/2015 10:51 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> I *don't* see any DB APIs for deleting instance actions.
>
> Kind of an important difference there. Jay got it at least. :)
>
>>
>> Were we just planning on instance_actions living forever in the database?
>>
>> Should we soft delete instance_a
On 11/18/2015 7:32 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/17/15 at 07:43pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/17/2015 05:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I found some time to work on a reverse sort of nova's tables for the db
archive command, that looks like [1]. It works fine in the unit tests,
but fails because t
On 11/18/15 at 08:32am, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/17/15 at 07:43pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/17/2015 05:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I found some time to work on a reverse sort of nova's tables for the db
archive command, that looks like [1]. It works fine in the unit tests,
but fails because th
On 11/17/15 at 07:43pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/17/2015 05:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I found some time to work on a reverse sort of nova's tables for the db
archive command, that looks like [1]. It works fine in the unit tests,
but fails because the deleted instances are referenced by
instanc
On 11/17/2015 7:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 10/9/2015 1:16 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 10/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/07/2015 11:04 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I'm wondering why we don't reverse sort the tables using the sqlalchemy
metadata object before processing the tab
On 11/17/2015 05:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I found some time to work on a reverse sort of nova's tables for the db
archive command, that looks like [1]. It works fine in the unit tests,
but fails because the deleted instances are referenced by
instance_actions that aren't deleted. I see any
On 10/9/2015 1:16 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 10/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/07/2015 11:04 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I'm wondering why we don't reverse sort the tables using the sqlalchemy
metadata object before processing the tables for delete? That's the
same thing I did in
On 10/09/2015 02:16 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 10/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I had a proposal [1] to completely rework the whole shadow table mess
and db archiving functionality. I continue to believe that is the
appropriate solution for this, and that we should rip out the existing
fun
On 10/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/07/2015 11:04 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I'm wondering why we don't reverse sort the tables using the sqlalchemy
metadata object before processing the tables for delete? That's the
same thing I did in the 267 migration since we needed to process th
On 10/07/2015 11:04 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
I'm wondering why we don't reverse sort the tables using the sqlalchemy
metadata object before processing the tables for delete? That's the
same thing I did in the 267 migration since we needed to process the
tree starting with the leafs and then eve
On 12/12/2014 7:54 PM, melanie witt wrote:
Hi everybody,
At some point, our db archiving functionality got broken because there was a
change to stop ever deleting instance system metadata [1]. For those
unfamiliar, the 'nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows' is the thing that moves
all soft-d
On 12/12/2014 08:54 PM, melanie witt wrote:
Hi everybody,
At some point, our db archiving functionality got broken because there was a
change to stop ever deleting instance system metadata [1]. For those
unfamiliar, the 'nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows' is the thing that moves
all soft-d
On 12/12/2014 7:54 PM, melanie witt wrote:
Hi everybody,
At some point, our db archiving functionality got broken because there was a
change to stop ever deleting instance system metadata [1]. For those
unfamiliar, the 'nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows' is the thing that moves
all soft-d
Hi everybody,
At some point, our db archiving functionality got broken because there was a
change to stop ever deleting instance system metadata [1]. For those
unfamiliar, the 'nova-manage db archive_deleted_rows' is the thing that moves
all soft-deleted (deleted=nonzero) rows to the shadow tab
21 matches
Mail list logo