Обсуждение: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module
Hi there,
We are working on connecting Greenplum to pgAdmin4. Currently we are exploring how modules work in pgAdmin. In an earlier off-thread email it was suggested we look at "the EDB PPAS" as an example of a driver class. We are not entirely clear on what that means.
We found:
- the BaseDriver in web/pgadmin/utils/driver, documented: https://www.pgadmin.org/docs4/1.x/code_snippets.html?highlight=driver#basedriver
- things that look EDB-related in web/pgadmin/utils/driver/psycopg2/__init__.py
Is it a good idea to keep looking for EDB PPAS as an example of a driver?
Does anyone know exactly where it lives?
Thanks!
George & Rob
Hi
On Friday, January 6, 2017, George Gelashvili <ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Friday, January 6, 2017, George Gelashvili <ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:
Hi there,We are working on connecting Greenplum to pgAdmin4. Currently we are exploring how modules work in pgAdmin. In an earlier off-thread email it was suggested we look at "the EDB PPAS" as an example of a driver class. We are not entirely clear on what that means.We found:- the BaseDriver in web/pgadmin/utils/driver, documented: https://www.pgadmin.org/docs4/1.x/code_snippets.html? highlight=driver#basedriver - things that look EDB-related in web/pgadmin/utils/driver/psycopg2/__init__.py Is it a good idea to keep looking for EDB PPAS as an example of a driver?Does anyone know exactly where it lives?
I believe 99% of it is simply inherited from the base driver, and (some of?) the rest of it is in web/pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/ppas.py.
Ashesh, can you help here? You know that code infinitely better than I do.
Thanks.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the pointer.
We realized that many of the changes we would need to make for supporting Greenplum would need to go where there is pg version checking throughout the code. This is because unlike PPAS which mostly adds additional features, Greenplum is based on postgres 8.3.
It looks like much of the version checking logic is repeated at points where the features are differentiated by postgres version.
It might make sense at this point to refactor the way that feature flagging is done to be a little bit more unified between server types and postgres versions so that we could for example have logic along the lines of:
feature_enablement = FeatureEnablement(postgres_flavor, postgres_version)
#...
if(feature_enablement.check_internal_triggers ):
# feature call here
and then in a feature enablement class, reference the various versions and flavors of postgres.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Tira and George
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
Hi
On Friday, January 6, 2017, George Gelashvili <ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:Hi there,We are working on connecting Greenplum to pgAdmin4. Currently we are exploring how modules work in pgAdmin. In an earlier off-thread email it was suggested we look at "the EDB PPAS" as an example of a driver class. We are not entirely clear on what that means.We found:- the BaseDriver in web/pgadmin/utils/driver, documented: https://www.pgadmin.org/docs4/1.x/code_snippets.html?highlig ht=driver#basedriver - things that look EDB-related in web/pgadmin/utils/driver/psycopg2/__init__.py Is it a good idea to keep looking for EDB PPAS as an example of a driver?Does anyone know exactly where it lives?I believe 99% of it is simply inherited from the base driver, and (some of?) the rest of it is in web/pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/ppas.py. Ashesh, can you help here? You know that code infinitely better than I do.Thanks.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:24 PM, George Gelashvili <ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for the pointer. > We realized that many of the changes we would need to make for supporting > Greenplum would need to go where there is pg version checking throughout the > code. This is because unlike PPAS which mostly adds additional features, > Greenplum is based on postgres 8.3. Isn't Heikki fixing that for your next release? > It looks like much of the version checking logic is repeated at points where > the features are differentiated by postgres version. > > It might make sense at this point to refactor the way that feature flagging > is done to be a little bit more unified between server types and postgres > versions so that we could for example have logic along the lines of: > > feature_enablement = FeatureEnablement(postgres_flavor, postgres_version) > > #... > > if(feature_enablement.check_internal_triggers ): > # feature call here > > and then in a feature enablement class, reference the various versions and > flavors of postgres. > > Any thoughts on this? I worry that the list of features would end up being huge - we're not just talking about basic things like whether DDL triggers are supported, but the catalog schema (e.g. procpid vs. pid in pg_stat_activity) and small things like whether a particular GUC can be set on a tablespace. Ultimately, you have to do a version check at some point though (unless you're proposing to do something similar to probing the DOM in a browser at runtime). Doesn't GP's version string contain additional info beyond '8.3'? In pgAdmin 3 we had a EdbMinimumVersion(int major, int minor) function in the connection class that basically did: return isEdb && BackendMinimumVersion(x, y); Something like that could check other elements of the GP version number. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:24 PM, George Gelashvili
<ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
> We realized that many of the changes we would need to make for supporting
> Greenplum would need to go where there is pg version checking throughout the
> code. This is because unlike PPAS which mostly adds additional features,
> Greenplum is based on postgres 8.3.
Isn't Heikki fixing that for your next release?
The current release is 8.2, we aren't trying to make that work with pgAdmin4. Heikki did a yeomans work and the next release will be based on 8.3. Future releases should be more than one Postgres version at a time but there was a lot of cleanup to do before we could start the Postgres merging.
> It looks like much of the version checking logic is repeated at points where
> the features are differentiated by postgres version.
>
> It might make sense at this point to refactor the way that feature flagging
> is done to be a little bit more unified between server types and postgres
> versions so that we could for example have logic along the lines of:
>
> feature_enablement = FeatureEnablement(postgres_flavor, postgres_version)
>
> #...
>
> if(feature_enablement.check_internal_triggers ):
> # feature call here
>
> and then in a feature enablement class, reference the various versions and
> flavors of postgres.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
I worry that the list of features would end up being huge - we're not
just talking about basic things like whether DDL triggers are
supported, but the catalog schema (e.g. procpid vs. pid in
pg_stat_activity) and small things like whether a particular GUC can
be set on a tablespace.
Ultimately, you have to do a version check at some point though
(unless you're proposing to do something similar to probing the DOM in
a browser at runtime). Doesn't GP's version string contain additional
info beyond '8.3'? In pgAdmin 3 we had a EdbMinimumVersion(int major,
int minor) function in the connection class that basically did:
return isEdb && BackendMinimumVersion(x, y);
Something like that could check other elements of the GP version number.
Greenplum is about to start leveraging semantic versioning. The version number for the next release will be 5.0.0.
--
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
Hi Dave,
I'm not too concerned about there being a ton of switches, because I don't think most features will need to be disabled. We will also likely make changes to Greenplum to support certain features like query plans rather than doing all the changes on the pgAdmin4 side.
What I would like to see though is version checking that happens in one place and is not tied exclusively to either flavor or version, but to a combination of the two. E.g. Greenplum 5.0 might support a feature that is not supported in 8.3 postgres.
Tira & George
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:Hi
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:24 PM, George Gelashvili
<ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
> We realized that many of the changes we would need to make for supporting
> Greenplum would need to go where there is pg version checking throughout the
> code. This is because unlike PPAS which mostly adds additional features,
> Greenplum is based on postgres 8.3.
Isn't Heikki fixing that for your next release?The current release is 8.2, we aren't trying to make that work with pgAdmin4. Heikki did a yeomans work and the next release will be based on 8.3. Future releases should be more than one Postgres version at a time but there was a lot of cleanup to do before we could start the Postgres merging.
> It looks like much of the version checking logic is repeated at points where
> the features are differentiated by postgres version.
>
> It might make sense at this point to refactor the way that feature flagging
> is done to be a little bit more unified between server types and postgres
> versions so that we could for example have logic along the lines of:
>
> feature_enablement = FeatureEnablement(postgres_flavor, postgres_version)
>
> #...
>
> if(feature_enablement.check_internal_triggers ):
> # feature call here
>
> and then in a feature enablement class, reference the various versions and
> flavors of postgres.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
I worry that the list of features would end up being huge - we're not
just talking about basic things like whether DDL triggers are
supported, but the catalog schema (e.g. procpid vs. pid in
pg_stat_activity) and small things like whether a particular GUC can
be set on a tablespace.
Ultimately, you have to do a version check at some point though
(unless you're proposing to do something similar to probing the DOM in
a browser at runtime). Doesn't GP's version string contain additional
info beyond '8.3'? In pgAdmin 3 we had a EdbMinimumVersion(int major,
int minor) function in the connection class that basically did:
return isEdb && BackendMinimumVersion(x, y);
Something like that could check other elements of the GP version number.Greenplum is about to start leveraging semantic versioning. The version number for the next release will be 5.0.0.--
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
Hi On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:18 PM, George Gelashvili <ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > We looked through the places where there is existing version checking and > there isn't a ton of it. That's because we went to great lengths to minimise it in pgAdmin 4. It's mostly confined to template selection for SQL now. > Our current plan for supporting Greenplum in > pgAdmin4 was not necessarily to support all the features of pgAdmin4, but to > at least get the core functionality working. > I'm not too concerned about there being a ton of switches, because I don't > think most features will need to be disabled. We will also likely make > changes to Greenplum to support certain features like query plans rather > than doing all the changes on the pgAdmin4 side. OK. From my perspective though, I have to ensure that what we offer in the community is a good experience. If it's not appropriate or necessary to support a feature in GP, that's fine - but it needs to be disabled to prevent users reporting bugs to us > What I would like to see though is version checking that happens in one > place and is not tied exclusively to either flavor or version, but to a > combination of the two. E.g. Greenplum 5.0 might support a feature that is > not supported in 8.3 postgres. Can you do a rough assessment of how many 'features' we'd be likely to need to have the PG driver advertise? That would give a better idea of the extent of the work involved. In principal I'm not against the idea of having a function in each driver that allows us to check for the presence of a given feature, including by-version as required. What I'm against is that becoming a mess of spaghetti... -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company