cbbrowne@acm.org wrote:
> We should be inclined to encourage the project :-); the merits for
> PostgreSQL are several:
> - There's a fairly high chance of failure, with the potential to damage
> reputation for both companies and both DBMSes
> - The disruption would allow PostgreSQL to "look more stable."
> (I'm speaking politically, not technically...)
> - The disruption would scare some people off of MySQL
> - If PostgreSQL development progresses steadily, in the interim, perceived
> disadvantages might get more directly dealt with.
> - Recent versions of MySQL are getting more disk and memory hungry
> than PostgreSQL. I don't imagine SAP-DB integration is likely to
> _diminish_ this...
> - If we see steady progress over two years, that's time for a LOT of
> functionality to appear before there's much more than some flakey
> "betas" of "MySAP-DB".
>
> There should be lots of smileys throughout :-), but I'm not making
> completely spurious jokes here; there is some reality to each of the
> points...
Hmm...I'd rather see PG win on its merits alone rather than as a
result of a big management screwup on MySQL's part.
Even so, I will say this: MySQL has a much better reputation than I
think it deserves, and many people incorrectly believe that it is a
full-featured database engine. So I won't mind seeing some of what
you speak of, as long as the amount of damage is no more than what's
necessary to bring the general view of MySQL back down to a firmly
grounded reality.
Of course, mistakes made on the MySQL side don't necessarily translate
to an easier time for PostgreSQL, and could easily translate to a
*harder* time for PostgreSQL depending on whether or not people view
those mistakes as typical of the open source world.
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
