On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Liran Schour wrote:
> OK. Andy, tell me when you post your changes so I will be able to base mine
> on top of yours.
>
I have got a version that seems to work. I plan to add more tests in
the next few days, then post them
for review.
In the mean time, I have pu
I am also very interested in the “where” clause in “monitor” for OpenSwitch use
and we intended to propose something similar.
Some questions:
What will we do when row A is the only reference to row B and row A doesn’t
pass the “where” condition?
Will A still be sent? or will B exist in IDL with
Ben Pfaff wrote on 15/10/2015 02:44:44 AM:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:57:38PM +0300, Liran Schour wrote:
> > Here is an update for the proposed OVSDB protocol specification (RFC
> > 7047)change suggested for overcoming OVN scalability issues by
allowing
> > clients to monitor only rows that m
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:57:38PM +0300, Liran Schour wrote:
> Here is an update for the proposed OVSDB protocol specification (RFC
> 7047)change suggested for overcoming OVN scalability issues by allowing
> clients to monitor only rows that meet specific criteria
> (http://openvswitch.org/pipe
Here is an update for the proposed OVSDB protocol specification (RFC
7047)change suggested for overcoming OVN scalability issues by allowing
clients to monitor only rows that meet specific criteria
(http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-August/059149.html)
Original proposal (v1):
http://op
Here is an update for the proposed OVSDB protocol specification (RFC
7047)change suggested for overcoming OVN scalability issues by allowing
clients to monitor only rows that meet specific criteria
(http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-August/059149.html)
Original proposal (v1):
http://op
