On 03/08/2015 02:28 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
On March 8, 2015 at 11:24:37 AM, David Stanek (dsta...@dstanek.com
<mailto:dsta...@dstanek.com>) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike Bayer<mba...@redhat.com
<mailto:mba...@redhat.com>>wrote:
can you elaborate on your reasoning that FK constraints should be
used less
overall? or do you just mean that the client side should be
mirroring the same
rules that would be enforced by the FKs?
I don't think he means that we will use them less. Our SQL backends
are full of them. What Keystone can't do is rely on them because not
all implementations of our backends support FKs.
100% spot on David. We support implementations that have no real
concept of FK and we cannot assume that a cascade (or restrict) will
occur on these implementations.
And even if the back ends do, we split behavior across identity,
assignments, and resources ,and FKs cannot cross those; Thety can and
will vary independently.
—Morga
--
David
blog:http://www.traceback.org
twitter:http://twitter.com/dstanek
www:http://dstanek.com
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
