[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Any objections to including the database schema unique id patch?
- Subject: Re: Any objections to including the database schema unique id patch?
- From: Gavin Carr <..hidden..>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:33:37 +1000
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:12:17PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> I sent yesterday a sql script that will patch the database schema to ensure
> unique transaction id's. Is there any objection to adding this to the next
This isn't an objection, just a comment/question.
Is there value in trying to defer non-critical schema changes for a
certain period of time while ledger-smb gets up and running? I guess
I'm wondering whether diverging the schema too quickly from SL
becomes a barrier to trying out/adopting L-SMB? If I as an SL user
know that I can just drop the L-SMB code base on top of my existing
schema, try it out for a few days/weeks - even try them both out
side by side for a while - then that makes the migration process
significantly less risky for me, particularly if I'm non-technical
and/or conservative/risk-averse (i.e. accountants ;-) ).
If I have to run a 'conversion script' to update my schema (even if
there was an 'unconversion script' as well), that sounds much more
risky than "no database changes required".
I guess there might be a halfway-house to where we only make changes
that are 'backwards-compatible' with SL e.g. column/table additions,
datatype changes like float-to-numeric, etc.
And I'm obviously thinking of this as a transition measure (perhaps
for a few months) while L-SMB gets up and running.
Open Fusion - Open Source Business Solutions [ Linux - Perl - Apache ]
- Fashion is a variable, but style is a constant - Programming Perl