[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer MDBX as an alternative engine to LMDB for rpmdb (#958)

[erthink]

> The thing is, the rpmdb is unlike your average database. People expect to be able to access it both backwards and forwards in time across chroots, containers for builds, software inventory and whatnot. And when that ability is taken away (by introducing a new engine, or just an incompatible engine file-format change), lot of s*** breaks and we get the "compliments".

@pmatilai, I am agree on 142%.
 
But for me, this thesis means that rpmdb should be able to work transparently with different storage engines simultaneously. Otherwise, the mentioned enduring properties are obviously unattainable.

However, this is a topic for a separate discussion, and here I would just like to note that when choosing between LMDB and MDBX, the latter wins.

P.S.
It is appropriate to mention that the desire to form and freeze the DB file format and most of the API is the main reason why "MithrilDB" is not yet released.

This same problem "wanna the best, but stable and frozen" strongly inhibits the development of many systems/projects (for instance the C++ language), and there seems to be no other solution than to allow for gradual migration.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/958#issuecomment-560394113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20191202/667190b8/attachment.html>