Thanks.I know the reason now.:) On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Bill Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, its mainly because BDB wasn't very good. Its transactional, but not > MVCC. Take a look at a contemporary article when the acquisition was made : > > http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/software/story/0,10801,108705,00.html > > > Curtis Maurand wrote: > >> >> Its mainly because it was purchased by Oracle. BDB provided transaction >> support. Innodb has been the defacto choice for a ACID transactions, but >> Innodb was also purchased by Oracle in its attempt to kill MySQL after its >> failed attempt to purchase MySQL. That's why MySQL has been working on >> their own storage engine as well as the pluggable storage system. >> >> Curtis >> >> David Giragosian wrote: >> >>> On 7/21/08, Moon's Father <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Any reply is appreciated . >>>> -- >>>> I'm a MySQL DBA in china. >>>> More about me just visit here: >>>> http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Maybe something to do with this: *BDB support will be removed. * Note >>> that, >>> as of MySQL 5.1, BDB isn't supported any longer. >>> >>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/bdb-storage-engine.html >>> But you're right that as a storgage engine, there have been very few >>> questions related to it, on this mailing list anyway. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Bill Newton > Network Merchants Inc. > http://www.nmi.com > (847) 352-4850/ Tel > (888) 829-3631/ Fax > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
