asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Metadata Dependencies
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:14:57 GMT
Do we absolutely need that fine level of granularity?  (Maybe a few 
examples would help.)


On 10/13/16 11:40 AM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
> I lean towards B as well. The interesting question is how to succinctly
> store the dependency field information in this catalog, i.e. I have these
> fields which correspond to the primary key fields of this other metadata
> dataset.
> Steven
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Got it.  IMO option B) is probably "better" in the sense that it seems
>> "safer" and "more transparent".  With A) not much might be known about why
>> those catalog entries are there, assuming a generic notion of "entity", and
>> there's always the potential for a buggy extension to forget to delete a
>> dependency and therefore force the non-deletion of a given dataverse.  With
>> B) you know what the issue is - the supposed existence of a metadata
>> dataset - and you have the possible recourse of verifying the existence of
>> such a dataset.  (E.g., if a buggy extension drops its dataset but forgets
>> to update this registry, you can at least discover manually that the
>> dataset is already gone.)  Maybe not a big deal, but....
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/16 3:11 PM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, "catalog" would be the better word here. Thanks for the
>>> clarification.
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume that by "index" you really mean "catalog" (as opposed to index in
>>>> the physical sense)?  I.e., your two proposals are about a possible
>>>> additional metadata dataset in support of extension dependency
>>>> management?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/16 9:47 AM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I am trying to get feedback from the group in general about how best
to
>>>>> add
>>>>> Metadata Dependencies, particularly in the context of extensions. The
>>>>> functionality that is needed is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> *When dropping a metadata entity A (e.g. a dataverse), first check
>>>>> whether
>>>>> A has any metadata entities that depend on it. Then allow these entities
>>>>> two options:*
>>>>>
>>>>> *1) block: don't drop A while this dependent entity exists*
>>>>> *2) chain: when dropping A, drop this dependent entity as well.*
>>>>>
>>>>> One issue to keep in mind here is that with extensions, Asterix will
not
>>>>> currently know about metadata datasets added by extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far we have two proposals for this issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) Metadata dependency index. When you create an entity that depends
on
>>>>> another, add an entry to this index. Check this index when dropping an
>>>>> entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> B) Metadata data set index. All Metadata datasets would be registered
in
>>>>> this index, and then we can query them as needed when dropping an
>>>>> entity.
>>>>> In this case we would need some way to specify which fields in these
>>>>> datasets represent dependencies in order to query them properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would like any feedback on these two solutions or proposals for
>>>>> alternate solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message