Eventual consistency is not part of the language, so outside the scope of Andl.
Easy distribution depends on a standardised language. SQL is a definite fail. There is only one Andl and it works identically on all platforms. That should help.
Why schema-on-demand? Can you explain what you mean by that?
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Guyren Howe Sent: Saturday, 23 April 2016 5:54 AM To: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Proper relational database?
The SQL language is terrible but we can live with it.
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.
Dear Important People: would the PostgreSQL project consider supporting other query languages? Or creating a plug-in mechanism for them, so that alternative interface languages could be added without changing the base code?
If by important you mean possessing a commit-bit then I don't count...but for me, such a project would have to gain significant adoption as a fork of the PostgreSQL code base before it would ever be considered for take-over by the mainline project.
