[development] Do not let postgresql hold back great patches

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail at webthatworks.it
Mon Nov 12 18:15:01 UTC 2007

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:23:37 -0500
Richard Morse <remorse at partners.org> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Chris Johnson wrote:
> > 2.  Not many Drupal sites use Postgres, so why support them?
> > Maybe there would be more, if we supported Postgres.

> Once all of the modules I use support PostgreSQL, I intend to
> switch over. It bugs me having to run both databases, and
> everything else we do uses PostgreSQL (or Oracle, but that's not on
> my servers...).

In my experience modules needs very minor tweaks to run under pgsql.
Furthermore most modules are simpler and smaller than core... I know
that if one upgrade break up something most of the time it will
require 5 minutes to fix pgsql compatibility back.
I wouldn't dare with core.

Again a Chicken-and-Egg situation.

If it would be easier to implement modules that support both DB...
One way is actually provide an api that hides the DB... another is
suggesting a standard guideline to support different db in modules.

For the reasons expressed I'd feel as a big loss if drupal will
support one DB only... even if by a miracle it would be pgsql.

BTW as someone pointed out if drupal would be designed with pgsql in
mind first... mysql would seem dumb and missing features etc...

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo

More information about the development mailing list