On 03.08.2016 09:26, Shane Kerr wrote: > I have a system running using PostgreSQL as a back-end today, but it > seems to be a 2nd-class citizen, with MySQL getting the most attention. > This makes sense since the developers have limited resources and need > to focus their attention on what is best for users (and sponsors). As you said the main reason is lack of engineering resources. But this is not how we want things to be. One of the important goals of the 1.1 release was to develop PostgeSQL, so it would be on par with MySQL. We're making progress with this goal. With implementation of ticket #4277, we mostly have host reservations working in Postgres. There are still some small missing things, like defining client classes on per host basis or updating documentation, but we're getting there.
On a related note, we recently got a patch for Cassandra backend. It is available on master, but it's still a bit rough on edges. But if you're feeling adventurous... :) > I have a very slight preference for PostgreSQL, but I really don't care > that much. Various software that I have use PostgreSQL, MySQL, or even > SQLite as the back-end, and it's all fine. :) > > So... my thinking now is that I should use MySQL as the back-end since > it gets new features first and seems like the best-supported. For > example, I'd like to use host reservations and this only seems to be > supported with MySQL. Depending on what your deployment timeline is, you may wait couple days for the PostgreSQL documentation to appear and then go ahead with that. Or you can start experimenting right away. Figuring out how to store host details in the DB is not exactly a rocket science, but it's not that trivial either. Tomek
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Kea-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/kea-users
