"Bret Busby" <bret@busby.net> Wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
> > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near
or
> > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists.
Firebird
> > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
> > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being
as
> > easy to use as PostgreSQL.
> >
> >
>
> I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will
> disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist.
>
Ok, fair enough, and since it is GPL'd when it is no longer maintained, it
will still exist ;-). One of the things that makes MySQL different than,
say, Nautilus is the fact that you have client libs licensed under the GPL.
Unless MySQL AB decides to change this, we will have a strong advantage, and
I don't see this changing anytime soon.
But I still think that MySQL is more likely to become non-viable than
PostgreSQL... MySQL is not helping their case much (now that PHP will not
enable MySQL by default anymore due to licensing issues).
> Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in
> the two different systems.
I have developed systems that support both. I understand what you mean.
>
> For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in
> parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL,
> some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use
> (or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or
> Informix, etc.
>
> Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the
> database will be stored?
I think you mean DBA rather than user or programmer. Tablespaces are in the
works and will allow finer tuning of database storage.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
