← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: request for comment: OQGRAPH in 5.1 packages


Arjen, all,

I like the idea of putting community developed storage engines into
our releases.

On 30.10.2009, at 21:35, Arjen Lentz wrote:

Hi all, fellow Maria captains in particular (but naturally anybody here can comment)

We'd like to include the plugin for OQGRAPH engine in the 5.1 packages we're just about to build. It would not be pulled in like the xtradb/pbxt engines, but be compiled separately and not loaded in by default (people will have to do INSTALL PLUGIN) so that as long as it's not loaded, it can have no influence on the running of mysqld.

It would not be loaded by default, but if you load the engine, then it surely will
have influence on mysqld.

The rationale is this.
From the experience with PBXT, people really want/need binaries/ packages before they will try things. If 5.1 binaries had had PBXT plugin sitting there, lots more people would have tried it earlier, filed bugreports and feedback, and Paul would have been where he is now much quicker. With MariaDB pulling it in it's ok now, but it's just a darn waste and pity of the earlier time.

I would like to be strict in our release policy. Once we declare a release beta, then we should be feature complete and no new features should be added. Otherwise, there will be n "cool", "harmless", "trivial", and so on additions people may
want to add.

Since 5.1's plugin infrastructure still requires a plugin to be compiled against close to exact the original mysqld source, the only way to ensure that is to compile them from the same source at the same time, next to eachother.
So that's what I'm proposing.

The plugin infrastructure and storage engine interface is not as clean as one would
guess. Therefore a new engine adds new risks to the run time.

Nonsense like the feature preview builds that Sun/MySQL did just make no sense in the real world, people can't use that. So while sticking new plugins in a future version like 5.2 appears sensible, it doesn't actually help in getting the code out there and used which is of course the only way to get feedback and bugreports. The ability to have plugins distributed but not loaded is the key here, it allows us to get stuff out and those who want to try it can, without destabilising anything for those who don't.

I don't see any need for feature preview stuff. We will have at least a stable branch and a development branch. I think that we aim for way shorter alpha to beta release
cycles; 3 to 6 months would be nice.

(On the practical side, since it's essentially separate it would get added during the source tarball prep in the builds, so no action required inside the maria tree)

With the packages getting prepped now, I realise it's a tad short notice. Don't feel rushed, but do please reply when you read this, otherwise it might get lost in your email pile (I know my friends, as I know myself ;-)

You are right, it would not matter, if nobody loads that engine. But people will
load it and it can lead to instabilities.

My answer is: no new features after beta.

Best regards,


Hakan Küçükyılmaz, QA/Benchmark Engineer, Stuttgart/Germany
Monty Program Ab, http://askmonty.org/
Skype: hakank_  Phone: +49 171 1919839

Follow ups