Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 10:52:53 -0400,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greatbridge had major funding, and succeeded in burning it off in, what,
12 months?
It's been a long time, but I thought they still had a significant amount
of money
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
MySQL already has major funding. I don't see how it could get worse for
us if Oracle bought them.
I think that Leonards point here is that if Oracle were to acquire them
and market MySQL as 'the low-end alternative', that
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greatbridge had major funding, and succeeded in burning it off in, what,
12 months?
It's been a long time, but I thought they still had a significant amount
of money left when Greatbridge was shut down.
Without going into the particulars, let's just say the total amount spent was
less than publicly announced figures, and the parent (sole investor) shut it
down before coming close to those figures.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 10:52:53 -0400,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 10:52:53 -0400,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greatbridge had major funding, and succeeded in burning it off in, what,
12 months?
It's been a long time, but I thought they still
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:39:08AM +0800, Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
Sidetracking a little, I've got to admit that I'm not very sure of
the impact of ORM to databases. Some OO proponents insist on not
using stored procedure etc. unless there is a compelling reason
(e.g. Martin Fowler in his book
Yeah, that's how I remember mysql doing it. I'm sure postgres
doesn't want anything to do with how they do it. If I recall it was
kind of convenient sometimes as long as you only select fields that
are unambiguous.
For instance take the query where table first_table has primary key
a:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
Vivek Khera wrote:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/bdb-restrictions.html
I especially like the third restriction. How on earth do people
live with this software?
That's the part where they allow only one NULL value in a unique
Alban Hertroys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But according to:
http://manuals.sybase.com/onlinebooks/group-as/asg1250e/sqlug/@Generic__BookTextView/21064
The definition of unique constraints in the SQL standards specifies
that the column definition shall not allow null values., although that
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 21:12, Chris wrote:
Then, even if you do write something to use postgresql a lot of hosts
don't support it anyway ('mysql is good enough').. so you're stuck.
Well, I guess the moment all the hoster's have to buy commercial licenses
for
providing a database
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Egad :-(. At least the SQL spec has some notion of wanting the answer
to a query to be well-defined ...
Yeah, the MySQL interpretation of this is basically as a shorter form of
Postgres's DISTINCT ON syntax. There's something to be said for MySQL's which
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As of this moment, if Oracle buys Zend, they could effectively kill PHP
... the core engine that PHP is built around is a Zend engine, so if
they were to revoke the license for that, PHP would be dead ... kinda
like MySQL with InnoDB ... now, there was talk at one point
Steve Manes wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As of this moment, if Oracle buys Zend, they could effectively kill
PHP ... the core engine that PHP is built around is a Zend engine, so
if they were to revoke the license for that, PHP would be dead ...
kinda like MySQL with InnoDB ... now, there
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
Does this mean the other shoe has dropped for MySQL AB?
I think the
Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/bdb-restrictions.html
I especially like the third restriction. How on earth do people live
with this software?
The preceding page is amusing too:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/bdb-todo.html
I find this
Tom == Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom* Change to use no page locks for table scanning operations.
Tom Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that sure sounds like they intend to
Tom dumb down BDB so that it no longer works well in concurrent situations,
Tom in order to save a few cycles in
Well, in all fairness, MySQL probably gives the right answer most of the time,
always really fast (except for some use cases).
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Tom == Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom * Change to use no page locks for table scanning operations.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 01:02:03PM -0800, Ben wrote:
Well, in all fairness, MySQL probably gives the right answer most of the
time, always really fast (except for some use cases).
Probably gives the right answer most of the time.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
--
Michael Fuhr
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
Is it possible that Oracle is trying to buy MySQL to kill off other open
source competitor, e.g. PostgreSQL? MySQL has a strong number of users and
therefore it is a good deal for Oracle to buy MySQL. Then by doing that,
Oracle will market MySQL as the low-end
On Thursday 16 February 2006 10:15, Steve Manes wrote:
Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
Is it possible that Oracle is trying to buy MySQL to kill off other open
source competitor, e.g. PostgreSQL? MySQL has a strong number of users
and therefore it is a good deal for Oracle to buy MySQL. Then by
And since MySQL already has got the upperhand in terms of marketing, Oracle
would buy MySQL to make it as the low-end alternative. Never mind the
lack/immature features in MySQL such as stored proc or trigger.
Mysql 5 has stored procedures and triggers.
The fact that you have to change
Then, even if you do write something to use postgresql a lot of hosts
don't support it anyway ('mysql is good enough').. so you're stuck.
Well, I guess the moment all the hoster's have to buy commercial licenses for
providing a database they'll switch to PG in no time - or charge more for
On Wednesday 2006-02-15 18:42, Leonard Soetedjo wrote:
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
eg mysql doesn't force you to group by all columns being selected - I
can do:
select field1, field2, field3 from table group by field1;
and have it valid in mysql (but of course postgres will tell you it's
not valid and need to add grouping for field2 and
Tom Lane wrote:
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
eg mysql doesn't force you to group by all columns being selected - I
can do:
select field1, field2, field3 from table group by field1;
and have it valid in mysql (but of course postgres will tell you it's
not valid and need to add grouping for
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quick test:
create table a(a int primary key, b int, c varchar(200));
insert into a(a, b, c) values (1,1,'one');
insert into a(a, b, c) values (2,2,'two');
insert into a(a, b, c) values (3,1,'one');
insert into a(a, b, c) values (4,2,'two');
mysql select
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
Does this mean the other shoe has dropped for MySQL AB?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
From what I read a few days ago, Oracle is
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
From what I read a few
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 10:51, Leonel Nunez wrote:
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
Does this mean the other shoe has dropped
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 10:51, Leonel Nunez wrote:
Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was
the
other way that MySQL could have
* Marc G. Fournier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As of this moment, if Oracle buys Zend, they could effectively kill PHP
... the core engine that PHP is built around is a Zend engine, so if they
were to revoke the license for that, PHP would be dead ... kinda like
MySQL with InnoDB ... now,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Marc G. Fournier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As of this moment, if Oracle buys Zend, they could effectively kill PHP
... the core engine that PHP is built around is a Zend engine, so if they
were to revoke the license for that, PHP would be dead ...
* Marc G. Fournier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has there been any actual test (ie: court case) of a piece of software
being released under an open source (BSD, GPL, whatever) license and
then the licensor revoking that and stopping everyone from
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was the
other way that MySQL could have transactions if Oracle decided to
restrict InnoDB tables (after purchasing Innobase last year).
Does this mean the other shoe has dropped
Chris Browne wrote:
This assumes that the MySQL AB plan was to have the new transaction
engine be based on Sleepycat DB.
There was certainly plenty of speculation that assumed that, but I
don't recall seeing anything actually said by principals of MySQL AB
to that effect...
The rumor wrt to buying sleepycat is true.
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2006_feb/sleepycat.html
--elein
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:32:00AM -0800, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Oracle purchases Sleepycat. From what I understand, BerkeleyDB was
42 matches
Mail list logo
