Bug 1208510

Summary:	table RHQ_CONFIG_PROPERTY not purged
Product:	[Other] RHQ Project	Reporter:	rhqlille <ext.gfi.benseghir>
Component:	Database	Assignee:	RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint>
Status:	CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA	QA Contact:	Mike Foley <mfoley>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	4.13, 4.12	CC:	dsteigne, hrupp, loleary
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-04-01 22:33:00 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description rhqlille 2015-04-02 12:17:52 UTC

Description of problem:
The table RHQ_CONFIG_PROPERTY contains 43620376 rows.
The purge is logged,  but it not purging table RHQ_CONFIG_PROPERTY.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHQ 4.13.1
Database Product Name : PostgreSQL 9.1.15 
JVM SUN 1_7_0_07
Linux x86_64 RHEL 5

How reproducible:
Every time

Steps to Reproduce:


Actual results:
The Data is not purged.

Expected results:
purging of the table RHQ_CONFIG_PROPERTY

Additional info:
see in attachment server.log (DEBUG)

Comment 1 rhqlille 2015-04-02 12:20:09 UTC

how to purge this table with batch or script ?

Comment 2 Larry O'Leary 2015-06-11 15:32:38 UTC

The configuration database does not get "purged" on purpose. If you purge it, you lose your inventory data and your RHQ system would be corrupt or non-functioning.

Are you instead thinking of "configuration history?" If you want to get rid of your configuration history then do so from the Reports > Configuration History page. Simply select the configuration update history you no longer want and delete it. Alternatively, you can do this on specific resources from their configuration history page.

Comment 3 Larry O'Leary 2016-04-01 22:33:00 UTC

Closing due to insufficient data but there does seem to be an issue with orphaned configuration entries. This could be what comment 0 is actually reporting.

Bug 1323332 has been captured with the relevant details -- or what little is known -- in regards to the orphaned configuration issue.