Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
| From | George Gelashvili |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAHowoHYZxBvHUNDVmYc0nO2vcSc7AG4w+HVrs2s-h5h_-oSKPg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module (Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io>) |
| Responses |
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Driver Module
(Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
|
| List | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi Dave,
I'm not too concerned about there being a ton of switches, because I don't think most features will need to be disabled. We will also likely make changes to Greenplum to support certain features like query plans rather than doing all the changes on the pgAdmin4 side.
What I would like to see though is version checking that happens in one place and is not tied exclusively to either flavor or version, but to a combination of the two. E.g. Greenplum 5.0 might support a feature that is not supported in 8.3 postgres.
Tira & George
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt@pivotal.io> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:Hi
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:24 PM, George Gelashvili
<ggelashvili@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
> We realized that many of the changes we would need to make for supporting
> Greenplum would need to go where there is pg version checking throughout the
> code. This is because unlike PPAS which mostly adds additional features,
> Greenplum is based on postgres 8.3.
Isn't Heikki fixing that for your next release?The current release is 8.2, we aren't trying to make that work with pgAdmin4. Heikki did a yeomans work and the next release will be based on 8.3. Future releases should be more than one Postgres version at a time but there was a lot of cleanup to do before we could start the Postgres merging.
> It looks like much of the version checking logic is repeated at points where
> the features are differentiated by postgres version.
>
> It might make sense at this point to refactor the way that feature flagging
> is done to be a little bit more unified between server types and postgres
> versions so that we could for example have logic along the lines of:
>
> feature_enablement = FeatureEnablement(postgres_flavor, postgres_version)
>
> #...
>
> if(feature_enablement.check_internal_triggers ):
> # feature call here
>
> and then in a feature enablement class, reference the various versions and
> flavors of postgres.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
I worry that the list of features would end up being huge - we're not
just talking about basic things like whether DDL triggers are
supported, but the catalog schema (e.g. procpid vs. pid in
pg_stat_activity) and small things like whether a particular GUC can
be set on a tablespace.
Ultimately, you have to do a version check at some point though
(unless you're proposing to do something similar to probing the DOM in
a browser at runtime). Doesn't GP's version string contain additional
info beyond '8.3'? In pgAdmin 3 we had a EdbMinimumVersion(int major,
int minor) function in the connection class that basically did:
return isEdb && BackendMinimumVersion(x, y);
Something like that could check other elements of the GP version number.Greenplum is about to start leveraging semantic versioning. The version number for the next release will be 5.0.0.--
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
pgadmin-hackers by date: