There should be a naming convention for neutron DB tables

[Henry Gessau]

Now that the database is healed and all tables are present, the names of tables are haphazard and there is no convention for avoiding naming conflicts or having sensible grouping.

A naming convention may look something like:

<vendor>_<plugin|service>_<feature|purpose>

Existing tables should be renamed to follow the convention.

A README file explaining the convention should be created in the directory with the models.

[Kevin Benton (kevinbenton)]

Why should existing tables be renamed? Won't that create quite a bit of unnecessary work in terms of migrations and code review?

[Eugene Nikanorov (enikanorov)]

I agree with Kevin here.
That mostly should be applied to vendor-specific models

[Ann Taraday (akamyshnikova)]

In fact some of tables already have name of plugin in its name. Naming new tables according to this naming conversion is a good idea, will keep this in mind while doing reviews.

[Henry Gessau (gessau)]

The recommended naming of tables for sub-projects is documented. The risk of conflicting names is low enough that it is not worth the effort to implement checks across sub-projects. Marking as Won't-Fix. This can be revisited if it becomes a problem.