[Koha-devel] Adding support for PostgreSQL, no new MySQLisms, please

[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.

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?

Cheers,


-Ian

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 13:48, Marc Balmer <marc at 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20120323/0e4e5389/attachment.htm>