Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> And MySQL is much closer to being a competitor now than they were in
>> 4.1. And feature-wise they'll probably equal PostgreSQL in the next
>> release. Will the features be anywhere near as robust or well thought
>> out? No. But in a heck of a lot of companies that doesn't matter.
> 
> Don't forget that they got nested transactions and PITR both before us. 
>  They will also shortly have really nice partitioning before us...
> 
> ...don't underestimate their development speed.
> 

Second that. In addition they have (early) in-memory multi-node 
clustering and Jim Starkey is writing them a new transactional storage 
engine to replace the probably-soon-to-be-license-hampered Innodb...

Cheers

Mark