The Interesting Installation Integer Problem

[Gervase Markham]

Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> 	We have a new Bugzilla::DB::Schema module coming, which is almost
> complete. (See
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=bz-dbschema>). It maps
> "generic" types to database-specific types. It's very cool.

I may be mistaken, but isn't this what the SQL standard does - i.e. 
define a set of types with names that all databases understand?

> 	I think we have a few choices that I can think of that will be entirely
> future-proof:
> 
> 	(1) Store a version number somewhere in the database. When we upgrade,
> read that version number and run the correct upgrade code.
> 	Problem: This makes running checksetup against a CVS tree very risky,
> where before that was no problem.

I don't quite understand the risk here; could you elaborate?

> 	(2) Store the entire current schema itself in the database. That way
> we'll always know what the "generic" type of a field is SUPPOSED to be,
> even if it's not possible to read out that information.
> 	Problem: That's a somewhat-decent amount of work.

It's also duplication of information. What if the two get out of sync?

Gerv