On 10/12/2005 5:04 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 05:55:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The other alternative is that MySQL is able to develop another
>> transactional storage engine quickly.
> Given how long it took them to develop sub-queries, stored procedures,
> views, etc...
I think everybody knows that this is out of the question. Developing a
new transactional storage engine from scratch in the required timeframe
If they really lose InnoDB, the only alternative I see is to approach
SleepyCat and hope, Oracle isn't already talking to them. However, last
time I looked BDB did not have foreign key support or MVCC.
You remember those T-shirts with "Foreign keys - check"? What are we
going to see now ... "Foreign keys - you still don't really need them"?
# 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-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2005-10-12 21:38:48|
|Subject: Re: Feedback from LinuxWorld, London|
|Previous:||From: Stefan 'Kaishakunin' Schumacher||Date: 2005-10-12 21:22:19|
|Subject: Re: mysql woes|