Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] interesting PHP/MySQL thread

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Erik Price <eprice(at)ptc(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>,"Advocacy (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] interesting PHP/MySQL thread
Date: 2003-06-24 01:00:10
Message-ID: 3EF7A29A.90101@Yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-docspgsql-general
Erik Price wrote:
> 
> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>> I'd be happy if PHP would adopt a database-neutral stance, ie, nothing
>> in particular bundled into their core distribution.  That might not be
>> compatible with their project goals though.  Anyone have a feeling about
>> how important it is to them to have bundled DB support?  Maybe we could
>> talk them into bundling more than one DB interface --- if they put both
>> PG and SQlite support into their distro, that'd be fine with me too.
> 
> On that note, last I read, MySQL is planning to offer PHP as a language 
> for writing stored procedures when the features is made available in the 
> 5.0 release.

On that note, last I read, MySQL is planning to develop a completely new 
enterprise level database system that will be named MySQL again (for 
confusions sake) and include code from what's known so far as SAPDB.

My question is, will MySQL 5.0 be based on MySQL 4.x and include code 
taken from SAPDB, will it be based on SAPDB with code snippets the other 
way around or will it be started from scratch and include one or the 
other piece from both?

And, if MySQL 5.0 *might* not be based on MySQL 4.x, what happens to 
that codebase? Will the current MySQL core development team continue to 
add all the promised features to the old product line, or will the 
existing users have to migrate to a completely different MySQL system 
anyway?

Note that we have seen that sort of "redo from scratch" before. 
Microsoft SQL Server is a really reliable database system after they got 
rid of the old crap, so it's not a bad decision per se. And if you don't 
play Crimson Skies on your database server, the Win2K + SQLServer combo 
makes a pretty decent production system. It's just that Microsoft had 
the "paying" user base that justifies to write useful conversion tools 
and that the old code base wasn't "that" extreme about violating 
standards. The future MySQL is supposed to support SAP's application 
platform, so it has to fail crash-me in order to be a little bit more 
spec compliant.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #


In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2003-06-24 01:15:48
Subject: Re: MySQL/PG search times
Previous:From: Chris SmithDate: 2003-06-23 23:20:23
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] interesting PHP/MySQL thread

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2003-06-24 01:15:48
Subject: Re: MySQL/PG search times
Previous:From: Chris SmithDate: 2003-06-23 23:20:23
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] interesting PHP/MySQL thread

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-06-24 01:08:33
Subject: Re: RE : full featured alter table?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-06-23 23:49:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ss_family in hba.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group