| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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 #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2005-10-12 21:38:48 | Re: Feedback from LinuxWorld, London |
| Previous Message | Stefan 'Kaishakunin' Schumacher | 2005-10-12 21:22:19 | Re: mysql woes |