| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proper relational database? |
| Date: | 2016-04-22 20:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZHONz=gGJbM8f3Ks9JcqCBFYee-FrzjSTxD3AOv4CWvg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The SQL language is terrible but we can live with it.
>
If anything, and especially something as pervasive and esoteric as SQL,
makes you question your desire to live please get help.
> But the answer to "Are there any relational data stores that offer
> eventual consistency, easy distribution, schema-on-demand or any such
> things a large modern application can use?" appears to be no. And that's
> just awful.
>
>
The axiom "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind here.
This applies even if the bird-in-hand is ugly and the glimpses of the ones
in the bush indicates they are beautiful.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-04-22 22:03:10 | Re: Columnar store as default for PostgreSQL 10? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-04-22 20:16:13 | Re: Proper relational database? |