Was the original Postgres plan to keep both the Oracle Schema and the postgres schema requiring any new changes to the schema to be done in both places? That would seem to be a testing/dev nightmare.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@redhat.com> wrote: > Kevin Fox <kevin....@pnl.gov> writes: > > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 12:26 -0700, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Indeed. I don't *want* to see a fork, I'm just pointing out that that > >> might happen if nothing gets done. > > > At the rate things are going, I doubt it. Space walk developers are > > willing to accept postgres support patches, and those aren't forthcoming > > so I don't think a fork is likely. > > No, you miss my point. What is currently acceptable, AIUI, is patches > that fit with the design goal of supporting Oracle and Postgres in > parallel. And even then, we're being asked to solve extremely hard > problems like how to keep two different schema declarations in sync > (with, it's implied, no ongoing developer time invested in managing that). > My point is that jettisoning Oracle support and cutting over to > Postgres-only would be orders of magnitude easier to do than what this > design approach requires. And if some people want to do that and the > current project won't do it, a fork is the likely result. The lack of > any work towards an unattainable goal doesn't prove that people wouldn't > work on an attainable one. > > regards, tom lane > > PS: again, speaking for myself. I have no control over what the > spacewalk project decides to do. > > _______________________________________________ > Spacewalk-devel mailing list > Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
