I was under the impression that QUEL was actually a good language in some ways,
and that it was more relational and better than SQL in some ways.
Maybe bringing it back would be a good idea, but as an alternative to SQL rather
than a replacement.
In any event, QUEL was somewhat similar to SQL.
-- Darren Duncan
Rajasekhar Yakkali wrote:
> "Following a great deal of discussion, I'm pleased to announce that the
> PostgreSQL Core team has decided that the major theme for the 9.1
> release, due in 2011, will be 'NoSQL'.
> "... the intention is to remove SQL support from
> Postgres, and replace it with a language called 'QUEL'. This will
> provide us with the flexibility we need to implement the features of
> modern NoSQL databases. With no SQL support there will obviously be
> some differences in the query syntax that must be used to access your
> data. "
> hmm.. shock it is ....this shift for 9.1 due in mid 2011 is unexpectedly
> soon :)
> Curious to understand as to
> - how this relates to every feature that is provide at the moment based on
> RDBMS paradigm.
> ACID compliance, support for the features provided by SQL, referential
> integrity, joins, caching etc, ..
> - Also does this shift take into an assumption that all the use cases fit
> the likes of data access patterns & usecases similar to facebook/twitter?
> or to address the the likes of those ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joseph Adams||Date: 2011-04-02 02:33:16|
|Subject: Re: cast from integer to money|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-04-01 23:11:23|
|Subject: Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Annamalai Gurusami||Date: 2011-04-02 05:15:34|
|Subject: Re: Merged Model for libpq|
|Previous:||From: Doug Johnson||Date: 2011-04-01 23:09:00|
|Subject: Handling bytea field in partition trigger function|