[wp-hackers] port of 2.1 to postgresql

[Computer Guru]

I just to add that the "the whole purpose of using one DBMS over another"
phrase isn't true.

When I was with a company and we spent 6 months trying all RDBMS until we
picked Oracle, the reason wasn't because of Oracle's non-ANSI-compliant
functions nor because of the different SQL Queries Oracle takes that MySQL
and MSSQL don't.

All the non-ANSI functions present in any RDBMS aren't necessarily the
best/most efficient/recommended way of doing things. There are dozens of
blogging platforms for MySQL out there that don't use all these proprietary
functions.

As for the work required, I think it's ridiculous to shoot down an idea just
because it takes some work - and it's that much in reality. Dave and I have
been working on his port for pgSQL, and there isn't that much quantity of
code that needs to be changed. Even if it took 3 months of coding to get an
alpha version out for a WP-multi-DB system, wouldn't that be worth it?

As for the plugin business - that's perfectly true. You can't force plugin
authors to write generic SQL, but when you think about it, a quick
compat-layer bundled with WP would take care of that, and you can force them
to use it too.
 

Computer Guru
NeoSmart Technologies
http://neosmart.net/blog/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: wp-hackers-bounces at lists.automattic.com [mailto:wp-hackers-
> bounces at lists.automattic.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cramer
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] port of 2.1 to postgresql
> 
> Interesting. I've never heard this argument before. Almost everyone
> wants flexibility.
> 
> Dave
> On 16-Mar-07, at 1:05 AM, Charles Hooper wrote:
> 
> > -1 for supporting multiple DBMSs. Alot of queries would have to be
> > re-written to be strictly ANSI SQL compliant, which pretty much
> > defeats the whole purpose of using one DBMS over another. I say we
> > keep it strictly MySQL in order to take full advantage of MySQL's
> > features.
> >
> > Martin Sturm wrote:
> >> Why doesn't Wordpress support multiple databases? I understand
> >> that it
> >> requires some changes to the archtecture, but it is a very useful
> >> feature I think.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers