Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 09:35:34PM -0400, John DeSoi wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the best way to go about creating a "plug and play," PostgreSQL
>>>> replacement for MySQL? I think the biggest problem getting PostgreSQL
>>>> accepted is that so much code is available for MySQL.
>>>
>>> http://pgfoundry.org/projects/mysqlcompat/
>>
>> Even better would be coming up with a compatability mode, a la what
>> EnterpriseDB has done for Oracle.
>
> Good Lord NO. I don't want a bunch of hacked up code *because* MySQL does it
> this way, running on top of PostgreSQL.

'k, so you want "pure PostgreSQL" ... but, shouldn't it be possible, with
all of our CREATE FUNCTION / RULES / etc features to create a 'translation
layer' that could be loaded, like anything else in contrib?

Hell, even if it gave an initial "in" for MySQL software developers to get
their code running on PostgreSQL, and then when they come out that "do
this is slower under PostgreSQL", they could optimize their code
appropriately?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664