[aerogear-dev] Dealing with UPS Keycloak data post-datasource-split

[Sebastien Blanc]

What about dumping only the KC tables (they have no relation with the UPS
table)  restore them on the KC separate datasource, apply migration on this
datasource and then  nuke the old KC  tables on the initial DB. And finally
applying the UPS migration path ?


On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
wrote:

> Sorry if I'm late for this discussion.
>
> On 2015-05-07, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > How about the following, not optimal, proposal:
> >
> > * get back to one data-source
>
> I'm not against about it, if it's for the benefit of the project.
>
> > * stick w/ Keycloak-1.1.0-final (in case updating to KC-1.2.0 makes above
> > item harder)
>
> I don't get why master must be reverted to 1.1.0 final. I think stable
> release of KC must go in 1.0.x series of UPS, but on master, we must
> stick with the latest greatest release of KC. Because is the only way to
> work closely with KC team.
>
> >
> > I understand that a separation of the two is needed on the longer run -
> it
> > would be good if that's something on our agenda post 1.1.0 e.g. for 1.2.0
> >
> > I think the above is a 'work around', which I could live with and buys us
> > time to truly think about a perfect separation.
>
> My 2 cents here and my humble opinion is the fact that we don't need
> perfection,
> only the correct. Today, split Keycloak and UPS would the most
> correct thing to do. I'm not saying what we're doing here is dead wrong,
> but
> sooner or later the problem will hit us anyway.
>
> So maybe we should attack the problem now?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Howdy y'all!
> > >>
> > >> I'm revisiting migration strategies for UPS master, and we have a
> tough
> > >> situation to deal with.
> > >>
> > >> Since we have moved keycloak to its own DataSource, there are KC
> > >> leftovers at UPS database which need to be cleaned up.
> > >>
> > >> 1) Any suggestions on how to provide a migration path?
> > >>   Since the tables are intertwined with UPS tables, it's not a matter
> of
> > >> doing a db dump/restore...
> > >>
> > >
> > > how are they intertwined? Is UPS stuff stored in KC tables, or vice
> versa?
> > >
> > >
> > >> 2) How to ensure we can safely get rid of the leftover tables on UPS
> > >> DataSource?
> > >>   I can easily provide migrations which just nuke the tables from the
> > >> face of the earth,
> > >>
> > >
> > > that's good, but
> > >
> > >
> > >> but how to do this without data loss?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't know :-) I wonder if we just can not move the data to a new
> > > datasource.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> aerogear-dev mailing list
> > >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> PGP: 0x84DC9914
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20150511/71880924/attachment.html