Re: Is PostgreSQL an easy choice for a large CMS? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tony Lausin
Subject Re: Is PostgreSQL an easy choice for a large CMS?
Date
Msg-id 296cdcaf0605011208g63208033if9f43779d8d84e6b@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is PostgreSQL an easy choice for a large CMS?  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
List pgsql-general
> And from reading that page, one can see that InnoDB tables are still
> considered to be kind of the "red headed step child" of table handlers
> by the mysql crew.  Sad, because it's the only table handler they have
> than can truly handle any real concurrency of reads and writes mixed
> together (it's a true MVCC modeled table handler).

I was just reading something about InnoDB. I've largely ignored it
myself, but basically MySQL is developing their own in-house engine
because InnoDB is now owned by Oracle. And I think there's been
problems with MySQL suddenly going from InnoDB to myISAM kinda out of
the blue. So much for transactions, right? :)

Anthony

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Wes
Date:
Subject: Re: Leading substrings - alternatives with 8.1.3?
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: Leading substrings - alternatives with 8.1.3?