The Future of Pyrseas: Part 2

When I started working on Pyrseas, I reviewed several other products. Robert Brewer’s Post Facto was probably the one with the most unique design. Although it compared database schemas in order to generate SQL to synch them up, it did not store database object definitions in a standard VCS repository. Rather, it used a Postgres database as the repository analog.

While Post Facto’s design certainly influenced Pyrseas, there is one aspect of  the former that, unfortunately, I did not emulate.

The Dependables

As any developer knows, database objects have dependencies on each other: table A has a primary key PK1, table B is declared with a foreign key dependent on PK1, function C is dependent on type X, view D is based on table A and includes a call to function C.

Pyrseas currently deals with these dependencies in an object-specific manner. For example, it does at least two passes through pg_class objects (tables, views, sequences, etc.) in order to create, alter or drop these objects in the correct order. However, this ad hoc approach can result in incorrect sequencing of generated SQL statements in some cases, particularly those like view D above.

The missing feature from Post Facto that avoids this conundrum? If you answered topological sort you were obviously paying attention in your Algorithms class. If you didn’t, may I suggest chapter 15, “Devising and engineering an algorithm: Topological Sort” of Bertrand Meyer’s Touch of Class.

Daniele’s Quest

Over two years ago, someone opened an issue about the need to create primary keys before creating views. Later, Daniele Varrazzo reported another issue with dependencies.

Many of you Postgres users will recognize Daniele as the maintainer of Psycopg, the popular Python PG adapter, which of course is used by Pyrseas.  Daniele and I chatted online, I mentioned Post Facto’s solution and he, fortuitously and generously, started implementing a topological sort on a deptrack branch of Pyrseas.

We then collaborated for about eight months. He did most of the initial coding and I ran tests and fixed some issues. Unfortunately, Daniele is very busy, with a full-time job, Psycopg and other interests, so the work came to a near standstill.

Where We Stand

The last time changes were submitted to the deptrack branch, about six months ago, only four tests failed (out of over 600) running on both Python 2.7 and 3.4 against Postgres 9.3. Regrettably, three of those tests are integration and functional tests, so correcting those is critical to adding this feature.

In addition, although most tests complete successfully, the run times have been impacted severely. This will require an effort at re-optimizing performance before releasing the changes. Last but not least, the implementation needs internal documentation so that it can be properly maintained.

Sadly, I have not had much time or incentives to address these shortcomings. Are there any Pyrseas, Postgres or Python enthusiasts looking for a challenge?

Advertisements

One thought on “The Future of Pyrseas: Part 2”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s