Hi Everyone, To add one top of what has already been mentioned,
AGE as an independent graph DBMS sounds interesting. It seems the file and folder structure of such a project will be very different from the AGE as an extension. In my opinion, there may be some challenges to maintain them in the same repository. -- *Rafsun Masud* On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 8:32 AM John Gemignani <jgemign...@apache.org> wrote: > If I am understanding this correctly, this is a PR for a new project along > side of the Apache AGE extension. It does not modify nor extend the actual > extension itself, which is Apache AGE. It merely adds an alternative, > rooted in PostgreSQL version 13, to the extension. > > I am not opposed to thinking of Apache AGE as a suite of openCypher > implementations and adding this as a fully integrated openCypher > implementation option; this could give more options to users. > > However, as this PR is donated code, I believe it will need to go through > the whole donation process. > > Additional questions to think about - > > How fully does it implement the openCypher specification compared to the > extension? > How does it perform relative to the extension? > Will we have the resources to bring them into line and across all > supported versions? > Does the community want or need this? > > john > > On 2024/05/06 21:52:08 Eya Badal wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > I hope you are doing great. > > > > We would like to have a conversation about a recent Pull Request [1] > that we received for Apache AGE. This Pull Request seems to introduce new > extension features for AGE within the DBMS core engine. Currently, it > utilizes PostgreSQL13 and aims to transform AGE from its existing extension > format into a fully Graph DBMS built on top of PostgreSQL[2]. > > > > Please let us know what you think. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/age/pull/1801 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/age/issues/1802 > > > > > > Thank you very much, > > Eya Badal > > >
