On Thu 31 Aug 2006 14:33, Alan DeKok wrote:
Peter Nixon <listuser@peternixon.net> wrote:
This makes sense to me. I think it should be for 2.0 though as changing the name of fields in a DB schema will break compatibility.
I'm not set on changing the name. If it's a problem, we can leave it as-is.
Nope. No problem. Renaming a database field is trivial to do, but something that MUST be included in upgrade notes etc. I think we should take the chance to get rid of as many of the small confusing things for 2.0 as possible as we will not have another .0 release for quite a while :-)
One of my pet peeves is that the mysql config file is called "sql.conf" which tends to confuse non-mysql users the first time around. This should be renamed to mysql.conf (oraclesql.conf should be renamed to oracle.conf also)
Let's fix that.
I think it may even be a good idea to make a raddb/sql/*.conf structure,= either that or maybe we should name the files sql.mysql.conf, sql.postgresl.conf etc. This then allows sqlippool.mysql.conf also. (Alternatively the sqlipool config should go inside the existing sql config files.)
Sure. We can also split the sql.conf file into:
sql.conf - global SQL things to the site, which does driver = postgresql trace files... $INCLUDE sql/postgresql.conf
for any postgres-specific things.
We can nuke the "rlm_sql" prefix from the "driver" config item, and update the code to accept one or the other.
Thats an even better idea. I shall do it this evening.
Also, before a 2.0 release I would like to sit down and bring the queries for the different SQL variants as close together as possible as they have gradually diverged over the last few years. (Much of it my fault as I have been continually adding new features to the postgresql schema :-)
Sounds good to me.
I have a few other things on my agenda that I'd love to do, like have per-"listen" configuration sections, but I think that's hard.
-- Peter Nixon http://www.peternixon.net/ PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc