Hi, On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Chris Sharp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Couldn't we develop some sort of upgrade mechanism that just aggregates > and runs each of the constituent scripts? What is the reasoning behind > stringing them into the longer monolithic scripts since running through the > numbered scripts provides the same outcome? > A couple reasons: - The monolithic scripts allow for consolidating multiple point updates into a set of statements that run more quickly. Arguably this is more of a potential for efficiency than something that has always been taken advantage of -- but sometimes, it has. - Of more import, since the monolithic scripts wrap all of the changes in one or two transactions, if something goes wrong, the transaction rolls back and the schema remains in a state that corresponds to a released version. In contrast, if something goes wrong while going through a sequence of point upgrades and one gets stuck, the database could be in a state that doesn't correspond with *any* released version -- which could be awkward if one is nearing the end of a maintenance window. Then again, if one hasn't done a dry run first... I should emphasize I'm listing some reasons why the monolithic scripts have existed -- I'm not suggesting that they're always superior to other approaches. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Infrastructure and Added Services Manager Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: [email protected] direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
