Open Stack

On 01/02/17 10:22 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> I personally continue to be of the opinion that without an explicit
> vocal and well-staffed champion, supporting postgres is more trouble
> than it is worth. The vast majority of OpenStack deployments are on
> MySQL - and what's more, the code is written with MySQL in mind.
> Postgres and MySQL have different trade offs, different things each are
> good at and different places in which each has weakness. By attempting
> to support Postgres AND MySQL, we prevent ourselves from focusing
> adequate attention on making sure that our support for one of them is
> top-notch and in keeping with best practices for that database.

is there actually mysql only code or do you mean that once things pass 
on gate with mysql, devs are happy? if the former, i understand not 
wanting to have to hack postgresql to pass gate.

>
> So let me state my opinion slightly differently. I think we should
> support one and only one RDBMS backend for OpenStack, and we should open
> ourselves up to use advanced techniques for that backend. I don't
> actually care whether that DB is MySQL or Postgres - but the corpus of
> existing deployments on MySQL and the existing gate jobs I think make
> the choice one way or the other simple.
>

i just want to point out that the current bug passes in mysql because 
it's more lax in how it parses sql and allows for some 
non-deterministism. the postgresql gate arguably caught bad sql which is 
a good thing? ideally, i'd like to have postgresql tested as well but it 
may be because most/all telemetry's sql backend hacks were required 
because of mysql and not postgres.

full disclaimer: i use postgres for local dev and mysql for my 
'production' (because packstack didn't do postgres). aka i use whatever 
is easier to install.

cheers,
-- 
gord