On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam <vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com> wrote: > Rohit, > > Has the autoscale tables been created in the upgrade path? Let me know if any > clarification or help is required. > > NOTE: > There are no changes in the existing tables for autoscale there are only new > tables introduced for 4.1
Thanks Vijay, just wanted to inform folks and ask them to verify my changes. I've moved all autoscale table rules to the upgrade path. Regards. > > -Vijay > > -----Original Message----- > From: rohityada...@gmail.com [mailto:rohityada...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Rohit Yadav > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 5:51 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Edison Su > Cc: Sheng Yang; Alex Huang; Kishan Kavala; Min Chen > Subject: Re: Merge 4.1-new-db-schema.sql to db/db/schema-40to410.sql > > I've applied my changes on master, to gain visibility of those changes and so > community can grok I started a new thread of db changes for 4.1 to support > rolling db upgrades. > > Regards. > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: rohityada...@gmail.com [mailto:rohityada...@gmail.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Rohit Yadav >>>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 2:58 AM >>>> To: Edison Su; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Cc: Sheng Yang; Alex Huang; Kishan Kavala; Min Chen >>>> Subject: Merge 4.1-new-db-schema.sql to db/db/schema-40to410.sql >>>> >>>> Edison, you'd created a 4.1-new-db-schema sql, may I merge >>>> 4.1-new-db- schema.sql to db/db/schema-40to410.sql? We'll also need >>>> a db/db/schema- 40to410-cleanup.sql and upgrading class. >>> >>> Yes, it should be merged into schema-40to410.sql. >> >> Hi Edison, there was one merge issue while moving the extra create >> rules from create-schema to schema-40to410.sql. In table >> cloud.template_s3_ref; >> >> diff --git a/setup/db/db/schema-40to410.sql >> b/setup/db/db/schema-40to410.sql index 9a9441d..3fb1e32 100644 >> --- a/setup/db/db/schema-40to410.sql >> +++ b/setup/db/db/schema-40to410.sql >> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`template_s3_ref` ( >> CONSTRAINT `fk_template_s3_ref__template_id` FOREIGN KEY >> `fk_template_s3_ref__template_id` (`template_id`) REFERENCES >> `vm_template` (`id`), >> - INDEX `i_template_s3_ref__swift_id`(`s3_id`), >> + INDEX `i_template_s3_ref__s3_id`(`s3_id`), >> INDEX `i_template_s3_ref__template_id`(`template_id`) >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8; >> >> I chose the change in create-schema, not not in schema-40to410.sql. >> Please check if it's okay, or fix as needed. Thanks. >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> There is some difference between the 4.0 create-schema.sql and that >>>> in >>>> 4.1: http://people.apache.org/~bhaisaab/diff-create-schema-40-41.sql >>>> >>>> Alex suggested in last discussion that we should not change the >>>> schema file and have upgrade paths and cleanup paths. This would >>>> help us do rolling upgrades. But Alex, there are a lot of difference >>>> between the >>>> 4.0 schema and 4.1 schema sqls (about 4k lines of diff): >>>> http://people.apache.org/~bhaisaab/diff4041sqls.sql If we don't want >>>> developers to change anything in the schema files, how do you >>>> propose we fix it now for 4.1? Move all these changes to 40to41 sql? >>>> >>>> Sheng (ipv6), Kishan (regions), Vijay (autoscale) I see some create >>>> schema changes, should we move them to db/db/schema-40to410.sql? >>>> >>>> Min, the create-schema-view did not exist for 4.0, should we keep it >>>> as it as, our move it as upgrade path? >>>> >>>> For 4.1, we should do following changes so DatabaseCreator could be >>>> refactored and used starting 4.2/master: >>>> - Change version to 4.0 in create-schema >>>> - Make sure there is difference between 4.0 and 4.1 create-schema >>>> sqls >>>> - Move new additions to db/db/schema-40to410.sql, define a cleanup >>>> path/sql and upgrading class from 40-41 >>>> - Fix cloudstack-setup-databases, for 4.1 we won't use >>>> databasecreator, stick with the present script (won't risk >>>> regressions and whatnot) >>>> >>>> Regards.
