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


From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re:
Date: 2004-02-25 05:12:58
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au (Christopher Kings-Lynne) would write:
> Anyone seen the new looking

Interesting; it points at Backplane (<>), which
is one I had not previously heard of.  It sounds rather like the
recent "clustering" version of PostgreSQL. 

Their licensing policy seems to be derivative of that of MySQL:

  "Our software can be used freely, up to a point, in commercial

With the line:

  "To anyone in doubt, we recommend the commercial licence. It really
   can't be wrong."

That is pretty sure to limit interest in it.  If you might imagine
using it for "commercial purposes," you might better consider
something more popular like Oracle or DB/2.

That being said, the design sounds interesting; quite different from
any of the other SQL databases I have seen.  The whole thing is based
on a replication/synchronization scheme, and watching for issues of
deadlock under conditions of particularly heavy load is likely the
grand challenge.
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc")
Rules  of  the  Evil  Overlord  #24.  "I  will  maintain  a  realistic
assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some
of the fun out  of the job, at least I will  never utter the line "No,
this  cannot be!  I AM  INVINCIBLE!!!" (After  that, death  is usually
instantaneous.)" <>

In response to

  • at 2004-02-25 02:15:39 from Christopher Kings-Lynne


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Uma ChingundeDate: 2004-02-25 13:05:23
Subject: features required for SQL 92 conformance
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-02-25 02:15:39

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group