Re: What Would You Like To Do?
| От | Michael Nolan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: What Would You Like To Do? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOzAquKSpQ3v+S9p6OfrvyveFW6B=jFcN+7rKbYits7zjfePEw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: What Would You Like To Do? ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: What Would You Like To Do?
Re: What Would You Like To Do? Re: What Would You Like To Do? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
But perhaps if a few 'commercial' features were on the wish list there would be more companies willing to fund development? The developers get a bit of what they want to work on, the production users get a bit of what they need, everybody's happy.
This is the difference between developers and real world users. Real world users may not have the ability, time or resources to redesign their databases just because that's the 'best' way to do something. Will it be the most efficient way to do it? Almost certainly not.
I've been involved in a few corporate mergers, and there was a short term need to do queries on the combined databases while the tiger team handling the IT restructuring figured out how (or whether) to merge the dabases together. (One of these happened to be an Oracle/Oracle situation, it was a piece of cake even though the two data centers were 750 miles apart and the table structures had almost nothing in common. Another was a two week headache, the third was even worse!)
In a perfect world, it would be nice if one could do combined queries linking a PostgreSQL database with an Oracle one, or a MySQL one, too. Because sometimes, that's what you gotta do. Even something that is several hundred times slower is going to be faster than merging the databases together. When I do this today, I have to write a program (in perl or php) that accesses both databases and merges it by hand.
Can you elaborate on tha a bit, please? The only way I've been able to do it is to edit the dump file to change the table name. That's not very practical with a several gigabyte dump file, even less so with one that is much larger. If this capability already exists, is it documented?
There are other databases out there, too, why reinvent the wheel by working on PostgreSQL? :-)
The question shoud be, would this be USEFUL?
--
Mike Nolan
Well just my own two cents ... but it all depends on who is doing the funding. At this point 80% of the work CMD codes for Pg (or tertiary projects and modules) is funded by companies. So let's not assume that companies aren't funding things. They are.
On 09/13/2011 10:13 AM, Michael Nolan wrote:The lists all seem to be focusing on the things that the developers
would like to add to PostgreSQL, what about some things that users or
ISPs might like to have, and thus perhaps something that companies might
actually see as worth funding?
But perhaps if a few 'commercial' features were on the wish list there would be more companies willing to fund development? The developers get a bit of what they want to work on, the production users get a bit of what they need, everybody's happy.
That isn't the approach to take. The fact that Oracle has it is not a guarantee that it is useful or good. If you need to query across databases (assuming within the same cluster) then you designed your database wrong and should have used our SCHEMA support (what Oracle calls Namespaces) instead.For example:
A fully integrated ability to query across multiple databases,possibly
on multiple servers, something Oracle has had for nearly two decades.
This is the difference between developers and real world users. Real world users may not have the ability, time or resources to redesign their databases just because that's the 'best' way to do something. Will it be the most efficient way to do it? Almost certainly not.
I've been involved in a few corporate mergers, and there was a short term need to do queries on the combined databases while the tiger team handling the IT restructuring figured out how (or whether) to merge the dabases together. (One of these happened to be an Oracle/Oracle situation, it was a piece of cake even though the two data centers were 750 miles apart and the table structures had almost nothing in common. Another was a two week headache, the third was even worse!)
In a perfect world, it would be nice if one could do combined queries linking a PostgreSQL database with an Oracle one, or a MySQL one, too. Because sometimes, that's what you gotta do. Even something that is several hundred times slower is going to be faster than merging the databases together. When I do this today, I have to write a program (in perl or php) that accesses both databases and merges it by hand.
This can be done but agreed it is not intuitive.
The ability to restore a table from a backup file to a different table
name in the same database and schema.
Can you elaborate on tha a bit, please? The only way I've been able to do it is to edit the dump file to change the table name. That's not very practical with a several gigabyte dump file, even less so with one that is much larger. If this capability already exists, is it documented?
There are a billion and one tools that do this without us having to reinvent the wheel. Why would we support that?(SqlPlus has this, even though it isn't very pretty.)A built-in report writer, capable of things like column totals.
There are other databases out there, too, why reinvent the wheel by working on PostgreSQL? :-)
The question shoud be, would this be USEFUL?
--
Mike Nolan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: