>May be I do not understand the problem, but does it make sense to change the history?
It does make sense if you are saying that deployment 'A' now has tenant 'T'. All the runtime process instances of 'A' will now have tenant 'T' but all the history tables will show blank tenant. So now, for reporting, if users of 'T' want to pull up reports on their processes, they will have lost all processes finished before the change in tenant. You will have process instances in the history table belonging to the same process definition but some will have tenant 'T' while others won't.
From my perspective a tenant is (should?) be basically an attribute of the deployment, the api also suggests this (changeDeploymentTenantId). So the historic tables have a relationship with a deployment through proc_def_id_ anyway. Having different tenant values for the same proc def values seems inconsistent to me but maybe I am misunderstanding the reasoning for this.
>When you have changed tenantId, is proper tenant id logged into history tables?
I haven't tested this out, I assumed it works but I'll test it out and report back here.