Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> If you want to get users to swtich to your software from your
>> competitors, you have to eliminate barriers, and a big one for any
>> database is getting locked into a specific one. People aren't going
>> to take the time to try switching to postgresql if they can't easily
>> make it back to thier former database. It's one of the reasons why
>> PostgreSQL's standards compliance is so important; if you want to
>> swtich to a new database, your best bet is to give PostgreSQL a shot,
>> because even if you don't like it, we're not going to try and trap you
>> into our software with bunches of non-standard knobs. Low barrier to
>> exit == low barrier to entry.
>
> Another reason why a tool to export from pgsql to mysql is just as
> important as the vice versa...
>
If that's really true, then let's create a bidirectional compatibility layer as a joint
venture with people from the MySQL camp. Should be a win-win situation. I somehow doubt that
is the case. Important yes. But "just as important"? No way.
We would loose big time on the export side since the vendor lock-in aspect is seriously out
balanced by current levels of standards compliance. On the other hand, we'd win by order of
magnitude on the import side. I bet the MySQL people would be utterly uninterested in such a
venture. I think that if anything should be done, we should concentrate on import and let
the MySQL people worry about going the other way. Once it becomes "just as imporant", they will.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
