← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: request for comment: OQGRAPH in 5.1 packages


+ there should be documentation of reasonable standard available for such

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 15:01, Michael Widenius <monty@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi!
> >>>>> "Arjen" == Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Arjen> Hi all, fellow Maria captains in particular (but naturally anybody
> Arjen> here can comment)
> Arjen> We'd like to include the plugin for OQGRAPH engine in the 5.1
> packages
> Arjen> we're just about to build.
> Arjen> It would not be pulled in like the xtradb/pbxt engines, but be
> Arjen> compiled separately and not loaded in by default (people will have
> to
> Arjen> do INSTALL PLUGIN) so that as long as it's not loaded, it can have
> no
> Arjen> influence on the running of mysqld.
> Arjen> The rationale is this.
> Arjen>  From the experience with PBXT, people really want/need binaries/
> Arjen> packages before they will try things. If 5.1 binaries had had PBXT
> Arjen> plugin sitting there, lots more people would have tried it earlier,
> Arjen> filed bugreports and feedback, and Paul would have been where he is
> Arjen> now much quicker. With MariaDB pulling it in it's ok now, but it's
> Arjen> just a darn waste and pity of the earlier time.
> Arjen> Since 5.1's plugin infrastructure still requires a plugin to be
> Arjen> compiled against close to exact the original mysqld source, the only
> Arjen> way to ensure that is to compile them from the same source at the
> same
> Arjen> time, next to eachother.
> Arjen> So that's what I'm proposing.
> Arjen> Nonsense like the feature preview builds that Sun/MySQL did just
> make
> Arjen> no sense in the real world, people can't use that. So while sticking
> Arjen> new plugins in a future version like 5.2 appears sensible, it
> doesn't
> Arjen> actually help in getting the code out there and used which is of
> Arjen> course the only way to get feedback and bugreports. The ability to
> Arjen> have plugins distributed but not loaded is the key here, it allows
> us
> Arjen> to get stuff out and those who want to try it can, without
> Arjen> destabilising anything for those who don't.
> >From my point of view, I think it's ok that we add 'alpha' storage
> engines, that are not loaded by default, to the MariaDB tree.
> In my view, an engine that is just distributed with MariaDB will
> not downgrade the overall quality of MariaDB itself.
> I would however like to suggest that when we impose the following
> restrictions to any engine code that are to be distributed with
> MariaDB:
> - The engine should be 'useful for a large number of people'.
> - The engine will not cause any delays (except build & test run times)
>  when doing MariaDB releases.
> - The code needs to compile without any warnings or errors.
> - The code should work on all platforms.
> - Any hard bugs (server crashes or security issues) should be solved
>  ASAP (preferably within 1 week)
> - Any reasonable-to-fix bugs should be solved promptly (within 2 weeks
>  or before next MariaDB release)
> - There should be reasonable tests for the engine to ensure that it works.
> If OQGRAPH satisfies the above requirements (or Arjen promises that all
> issues will be taken care of), I am ok to add it to MariaDB 5.1
> Comments?
> Regards,
> Monty
> PS: Yes, I know that this means we should try to get sphinx into
>    MariaDB 5.1 too ASAP.
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp