Hello,
I sent these patches over a year ago. Can they be reviewed?
Patches I sent earlier were rejected because a full merge of the database creation process was a better approach. This
seriesof patches does exactly that.
On 07/05/2022 11:32, Célestin Matte wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Gentle reminder that this patch has not been reviewed and may have been forgotten
>
> On 03/02/2022 14:30, Célestin Matte wrote:
>> As discussed in previous threads before [1, 2], database creations file are currently split between the Django model
anda SQL file. Discrepancy in the database's definition exists between them. As a consequence, the database cannot be
createdeasily.
>> This series of patches merge schema.sql into Django's model, and adds specific postgres components that cannot be
handledby Django's ORM using RunSQL() in a migration file.
>>
>> Please also note that I integrated several other patches to avoid multiple migration files:
>> - I allowed message.parentid to be null, as discussed in [1]. This can cause Internal Server Errors in views.py,
whichare fixed by the second patch.
>> - I used BinaryFields for bytea columns (message.rawtxt and attachments.attachment), which seems to be the way to
integratebytea into Django
>>
>> It may be a good opportunity to remove all mentions of pg_dict, pg_stop and associated file. I'm not sure of the
consequencesof this. According to [2], these are the remains of an aborted idea.
>> Also, what does tsparer bring? Can the installation of pgarchives be simplified by replacing it with
pg_catalog.english?
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyFpYPEHh0AAyTAsgymRKOOVA1SY_pDHPCbBQQ9BawfTA%40mail.gmail.com
>> [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEy_i1xAKscMv4KZ0%3DbE8050bBcQfWaNyjwZZBofZx7JgQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
>
--
Célestin Matte
