On 09/19/2011 12:40 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> Actually, I think it *is* a bad idea, as it would require construction
> from whole cloth of kinds of mostly political infrastructure that we
> don't have, as a community and aren't necessarily notably competent to
> The nearest sort of thing that *could* conceivably be sensible would
> be to participate in UnQL
> <http://www.unqlspec.org/display/UnQL/Home>. That's early enough in
> its process that it's likely somewhat guidable, and, with the
> popularity of NoSQL, being at the "ground breaking" of a common query
> language to access that would likely be useful to us.
> If we wanted to start a new standards process, I imagine it would best
> involve embracing "truly relational," stepping back to PostQUEL, and
> promoting a standard based on something off more in that direction.
If I were looking for something "truly relational" I wouldn't go towards
JSON or NoSQL, I'd go with something like Dee
(http://www.quicksort.co.uk/ ) which IIRC were interested in building a
> As much as that might sound like a terrible idea, trying to "take
> over" SQL by forking it strikes me as a much *worse* idea.
My intention was not to "take over" anything. I only think it may be
useful to discuss SQL features, informally or otherwise, with other open
source "competitors" such as SQLite, MySQL (brethren), Firebird, etc.,
and Josh, having been close to the MySQL camp (even physically, from
what I recall :-) is possibly well suited to start that discussion.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-09-19 17:17:59|
|Subject: Re: Review for EXPLAIN and nfiltered|
|Previous:||From: Vitor Reus||Date: 2011-09-19 17:11:18|
|Subject: Re: CUDA Sorting|