Am 23.03.12 21:39, schrieb Ian Walls: > Marc, > > > Without concrete examples of what RDMS-specific features would be desirable > for us, I'm more inclined to reach for compliance with standards (and thus > any standards-based RDMS) than for adding support for specific new RDMS > systems. Now, of course every RDMS is different, and will implement the > standard a little differently, so we can't code for every possible system, > but I do believe we can get most of the ones worth having if we stick with > the standards.
The right thing to do is, in order, 1) Use standard SQL wherever possible 2) Use DBI wherever possible 3) Use DBQ if there is really no other solution > Are there any specific features of PostgreSQL that would lead to a > beneficial new feature for library patrons? I know there is plenty of > literature on it's merits over MySQL, but how do those translate to > something that the users of Koha can benefit from? Yes, of course. > > Cheers, > > > -Ian > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 13:48, Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> wrote: > >> Am 23.03.12 17:23, schrieb Ian Walls: >>> According to rule SQL6 of our Coding Guidelines ( >>> http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Coding_Guidelines#Database), >> backquotes >>> are not acceptable, as they are a MySQL-ism. Part of the duty of QA is >> to >>> verify that the coding guidelines are met, so it is reasonable to say >> that >>> such markings *should* be stripped out of any new incoming patches. As >> to >>> whether having them results in a "Failed QA" or a followup/rebased patch >>> from a QA team member is up to the discretion and availability of that >> team >>> member. >>> >>> I know I've been a little lax with this one, as we're still rife with >>> backquotes in our SQL, and one or two more lines aren't going to add any >>> significant additional work to our cleanup efforts. My primary interest >> is >>> consistency, because it makes for easier to read and maintain code. Once >>> we have done the majority of this cleanup, I'll become stricter about >>> backquotes. >>> >>> The ultimate goal here, to the best of my understanding, is database >>> independence, of which PostgreSQL support is a consequence. We should do >>> our best to adhere to standards in all regards; by following SQL standard >>> practices, we give ourselves more flexibility and adaptability, and >>> decrease the overall potential workload throughout time. >> >> It is on my todo lists to very soon go through the code and provide a >> patch that removes the backquotes. I think we are on a good road now, >> and I try to provide small patches, that address one single problem each. >> >> While database independence is a noble goal, it is not achievable. You >> can support some databases, but not all, at least if you want to use >> some of the more advanced features a DB system has to offer you. And in >> an advanced and large application like Koha is, you probably want that. >> >> My guess is, that adding support for a second database will show what >> can be done and what not. >> >> > _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
