On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:06:47AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 11:52:23 PM: > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: ovs-dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > Date: 08/02/2016 11:52 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Let's talk the NB DB IDL Part I - things > > we've see scaling the networking-ovn to NB DB connection > > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:45:07PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 10:56:07 PM: > > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 10:14:46 PM: > > > > > Presumably this means that networking-ovn is calling "verify" on > the > > > > > column in question. Probably, networking-ovn should use the > partial > > > map > > > > > update functionality introduced in commit f199df26e8e28 "ovsdb-idl: > Add > > > > > partial map updates functionality." I don't know whether it's in > the > > > > > Python IDL yet. > > > > > > > > Indeed they are and thanks for the pointer to the commit - I'll dig > > > > into it tomorrow and see if that code is reflected in the Python > > > > IDL via that or another commit. If it is, great. If not, there > > > > will likely also be a patch adding it so that we can move along. > > > > > > Hmm, maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't thing that's going > > > to work without some additional modifications - the partial map commit > > > currently codes for columns that have a particular value type defined > > > by the schema. The problem we are seeing is with the ports and acls > > > columns of the logical switch table, which are lists of strong > > > references. Since they don't have a defined value, the generated IDL > > > code doesn't provide hooks for using partial map operations and we > default > > > back to update/verify with the given above results. > > > > > > Now, I think this an oversight, because I can argue that since these > > > are strong references, I should be able to use partial maps to update > > > them as keys with a null value. Does this make sense or am I breaking > > > something if I look at going this route? > > > > If they're implemented as partial map operations only, then we should > > extend them to support partial set operations too--the same principles > > apply. > > I'm not sure I parsed this correctly, but I think we are saying the same > thing: change the IDL for columns that contain sets of strong references > from using update/verify to using mutate for partial set operations (I > realized after hitting the send button that I should have said partial > sets instead of partial maps...)
Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
