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

Re: mysql woes

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mysql woes
Date: 2005-10-12 21:33:24
Message-ID: 434D8124.20409@Yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
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 
is unrealistic.

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"?


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-advocacy by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2005-10-12 21:38:48
Subject: Re: Feedback from LinuxWorld, London
Previous:From: Stefan 'Kaishakunin' SchumacherDate: 2005-10-12 21:22:19
Subject: Re: mysql woes

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