Salutations

[Rob Browning]

Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:

> I'm not trying to start a religious war, but at the moment, MySQL
> doesn't support transactions, which I see as one of the big gains in
> moving from (or supporting in addition to) the current file based
> system. Yes, one can implement transactions "on-top-of", but then you
> might as well stick with the file system.
> 
> Of course, the Right Thing is to be DB independent, but you probably
> need to have some sort of "pre-test" to make sure the configured DB
> supports all the necessary functionality.

Well, my little knowledge tends to make me favor PostreSQL too, but
I'd be happy to defer to people with more knowledge, and as you point
out, one question we need to address is whether we want to be LCD
(Least Common Denominator), or whether or not we are willing, if even
for the short term, to commit ourselves to a particular DB in exchange
for enhanced functionality...

As long as it's a free DB, it's not as huge a deal to exclusively
support just that one, since anyone can install it (and we can include
it if needed), but it's still not as flexible as allowing the user to
use the DB they've already deployed, and as we move into the
small-business arena, allowing people to stick data in *their* DB will
probably become more critical.  Though, even there, as long as we have
ways to interface with other DBs (i.e. batch push/pull) that may make
most people happy.

Anyway, definitely a discussion we need to have.

-- 
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930