> > MysQL even doesn't support the full SQL syntax > > Yes MySQL shouldn't be called a SQL database.
Glorified File System? > Btw: PostgreSQL doesn't support the full syntax too but supports all > features. > > There are still features missing but who cares if we don't need them? This is a pet peeve - How do you know that you don't need something if you don't know that you know that you don't need it? (wtf did i just type?!?) Haha, basically I'm trying to say that 99 percent of the MySQL apps out there today would be fine w/a little file based SQLite db. All they really needed was an easy, fast, and cheap way to access + store data - the overheard of a database for what most of these apps do is overkill. But it drives me up the wall when I see developers implementing things in their code that would fit perfectly in the db. Take our own db.c... there's pages and pages of SQL queries in there - but if we weren't supporting MySQL we could just pull all that crap out and store it in table views where we totally hide all the complexity of the db layout w/something as simple as SELECT from,to,subject,body,date FROM dbmail_mailboxview; Or how about all our quota functions? In Postgres we could write our own plpsql function and rule/trigger that would automatically recalculate the quota for a mailbox on INSERT,UPDATE,DELETE and we could dump all the C code and just let the db deal with it. If you enforce something like that at the db level, you'd never need to compute quotas nightly - they'd *always be correct*. I'm only trying to illustrate a point - there's things we could be doing w/a postgres only backed dbmail that would blow us all away.. but if we did that we'd be the only ones using it. You don't gain more users by ignorining the biggest kid on the block. ----- "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word." -- Andrew Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
