Kevin Fox <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 12:26 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed. I don't *want* to see a fork, I'm just pointing out that that
>> might happen if nothing gets done.
> At the rate things are going, I doubt it. Space walk developers are
> willing to accept postgres support patches, and those aren't forthcoming
> so I don't think a fork is likely.
No, you miss my point. What is currently acceptable, AIUI, is patches
that fit with the design goal of supporting Oracle and Postgres in
parallel. And even then, we're being asked to solve extremely hard
problems like how to keep two different schema declarations in sync
(with, it's implied, no ongoing developer time invested in managing that).
My point is that jettisoning Oracle support and cutting over to
Postgres-only would be orders of magnitude easier to do than what this
design approach requires. And if some people want to do that and the
current project won't do it, a fork is the likely result. The lack of
any work towards an unattainable goal doesn't prove that people wouldn't
work on an attainable one.
regards, tom lane
PS: again, speaking for myself. I have no control over what the
spacewalk project decides to do.
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
