Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris.kings-lynne@calorieking.com>
Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2006-05-19T01:41:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >> And MySQL is much closer to being a competitor now than they were in >> 4.1. And feature-wise they'll probably equal PostgreSQL in the next >> release. Will the features be anywhere near as robust or well thought >> out? No. But in a heck of a lot of companies that doesn't matter. > > Don't forget that they got nested transactions and PITR both before us. > They will also shortly have really nice partitioning before us... > > ...don't underestimate their development speed. > Second that. In addition they have (early) in-memory multi-node clustering and Jim Starkey is writing them a new transactional storage engine to replace the probably-soon-to-be-license-hampered Innodb... Cheers Mark