On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Terry Ellison <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/08/11 02:23, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > >> +1 to move to PostgreSQL. >> >> It's more work but it's also more portable than the other >> option that I would have suggested: ZFS. >> > Picking up Wolf and Pedro's point. We used to use PostgreSQL to run the > forums and I found it an excellent product. (We migrated to MySQL after Sun > bought the company and wanted a MySQL logo on every page footer, so made > this "request". How times have changed.) > > There are two factors against an early move to PostgreSQL: (i) The > MediaWiki cavaets on its use (here <http://www.mediawiki.org/** > wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL>> > and as all experienced Wikipedian's do look at the associated talk page here > <http://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Manual_talk:PostgreSQL<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual_talk:PostgreSQL>>; > this has a couple of interesting references which cookbook the conversion). > (ii) The extra work involved. This is not only the D/B migration, but also > a MW version upgrade 15.1 -> 17. > > To be honest I am uncomfortable doing this as part of this immediate > "continuity of service" migration. My suggestion is that if the wiki looks > as if it is going to have a long term place within the project then we > should revisit this as part of an in-service improvement program in, say, > 6-12 months. > > //Terry > Perhaps, in the case that you want to upgrade the MW version, the database issue makes sense to revisit. <humour> Since Apache is not requesting we go to an Apache-brand database </humour> -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
