** Reply to message from Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> on Sun, 25 May 2003
01:57:34 -0400
Yeah,
We actually had a look at both MySql and SapDB (looks like it used to be
adabas natural ?) as well as Postgres, before attempting our port to an open
source database. We previously had been running over db2 (mostly).
MySql wasn't enough of a dbms to support our requirements (or that of our
clients). SapDb just looked extremely unusual (more effort in the port :).
We have been very pleased with the port to Postgres, and with our clients
eager acceptance of it.
It tends to peeve me that MySql gets its name mentioned in more rags as /the/
example of an open source competitor to the commercials. I guess it goes to
show just how many folk really are using their "database" as a simple
persistence mechanism for fairly trivial apps, or are willing to live with data
inconsistency in their data store.
Regards,
Wayne
Bacchus Management Systems
http://www.bacchus.com.au
> In case you've not checked out Slashdot in the last day or two:
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/23/1826202&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=198
>
> I tend to agree with the viewpoint that getting anything useful out of
> such a merger will be a difficult project.
>
> Anyone suppose they both felt they had to do this because they were each
> losing ground to Postgres? If they do make a successful merger of the
> best parts of each DB, they'll certainly become a much better combined
> competitor ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
