SQL config file names
listuser at peternixon.net
Mon Jul 23 12:33:00 CEST 2007
On Fri 20 Jul 2007, Hugh Messenger wrote:
> > I like Alan's suggestion though..
> Yup, me too. But I would like to use the module name as the base name for
> the file, wherever possible.
> I also like Alan's suggestion of moving the schemas into the ./sql
> hierarchy as well, makes more sense than keeping them tucked away in
> I'm not wild about using symlinks, though.
> So how about something like:
> Etc etc. And yes, I'm aware that currently the radippool table is defined
> in the main foo.sql schema. IMHO it should be in its own file, again
> named after the module.
Why? What is the benefit of making people import two schema's instead of one?
I don't see how having one extra, possibly unused table in the default
schema is at all harmfull, and in my opinion the added "cleanliness" does
not make up for the extra command every user will have to type when they
want to setup sqlippool (Which I believe is going to be a wildly popular
module in the near future :-)
More information about the Freeradius-Devel