[openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer

Chris Dent cdent+os at anticdent.org
Tue May 23 18:59:27 UTC 2017

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Jay Pipes wrote:

> Err, in my experience, having a *completely* dumb persistence layer -- i.e. 
> one that tries to assuage the differences between, say, relational and 
> non-relational stores -- is a recipe for disaster. The developer just ends up 
> writing join constructs in that business layer instead of using a relational 
> data store the way it is intended to be used. Same for aggregate operations. 
> [1]
> Now, if what you're referring to is "don't use vendor-specific extensions in 
> your persistence layer", then yes, I agree with you.

If you've commited to doing an RDBMS then, yeah, stick with
relational, but dumb relational. Since that's where we are [3] in
OpenStack, then we should go with that.

[3] Of course sometimes I'm sad that we made that commitment and
instead we had an abstract storage interface, an implementation
of which was stupid text files on disk, another which was generic
sqlalchemy, and another which was raw SQL extracted wholesale from
the mind of jaypipes, optimized for Drizzle 8.x. But then I'm often
sad about completely unrealistic things.

Chris Dent                  ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)       https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list