> As usual, Josh makes good points.
>
> A text-based database is less convenient to query. I really don’t see why
> storing the information in a database should be challenging. But I’m not
> writing the TCL or C.
>
> I would feel more comfortable running sql queries to verify the snapshots
> are being created accurately.
>
> If text-based storage moves the project forward more quickly do that for
> now. That would be my advice.
>
> It is your call Umesh.
>

At this stage, it's equal time and effort going either side. So I suggest
to continue with the original approach UNLESS there's an additional
advantage with the other.

> And yes, you would need procedures to manipulate this stuff from Tcl as
> you suggested above. And the existing code would need to be updated to only
> remove ports when they are no longer referenced by any snapshot.
> >
> > And then again, I am sensing a confusion with the idea of snapshot with
> Josh, like when he says "remove ports when they are no longer referenced by
> any snapshot”.
>
> I think Josh is referring to 3NF normalization (third normal form). I
> don’t think this use case warrants this complexity. I think it is fine for
> two snapshot id’s to reference the same port+variant combination. When a
> snapshot id is deleted, cascade delete.
>

I think we can pick up the deletion of a snapshot later.

- Umesh

Reply via email to