On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 17:00, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > > It is hard to understand that if he is willing to make PostgreSQL the
> > > default for Compiere, why he would refuse to include any changes to
> > > allow Oracle and PostgreSQL to both work.
> >
> > But if what he wants is nested transactions, then I could see him paying
> > for development providing better ROI than forking the code. Is that what
> > was meant by "the right kind of transaction support" ?
>
> If he wanted nested transactions, and was willing to pay for development, I
> can't imagine us turning him down. Nested xtn have been on the TODO list for
> years.
>
I think his (his being the compiere guy) point was that if someone in
the postgresql community wanted to implement some of the more difficult
features into postgresql that he would make it the default db for
compiere. however he tried himself to raise funds to make it happen and
he could not, so it's on the postgresql community to make it happen
now.
The big question as I see it is whether he is willing to make
incremental steps to make compiere more postgresql compatible if it
might hurt the oracle side (the nvarchar2 to varchar data type change is
a good example of this). If he is willing to make these changes then all
is good, if not then istm that a fork would be the likely outcome.
course, its a lot of speculation and discussion that should probably
happen on the compiere lists, they have discussed this issue before and
would do so again, and as bruce said, getting the compiere community
support is the first step.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
