On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 14:34, TJ O'Donnell wrote: > "Chad" <chadzakary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "What we need now is an open source DB with clean APIs into various > places in the software stack (eg we need a Berkeley DB kind of API > under the hood into something like Postgres) A full bells and whistles > relational DB with these low level ACCESS APIs will be a powerfull > thing in the future. PostgreSQL take note. If you don't already have it > you should begin exposing such a thing today in my humble opinion." > > I am quite happy with the c-language API for postgres, as far as it's > capabilities and access to low-level postgres. OK, the docs and examples could > be better. Am I missing something in Chad's comments/warnings or is he > missing something in not understanding pg better? > Chad, could you say more about what in the BDB/API is missing and needed in postgres? > > Could it be that Oracle's recent company purchases were intended simply to confuse > people about the future of MySQL and therefore ecourage them to select Oracle? Yeah, plus, besides PostgreSQL's front-end C api (libpqxx) there's the backend api, which can be programmed with the C language directly, and used to do things like write triggers and all that. I'm not sure what more Chad could want there either. Hell, you could spend a lifetime just exploring some small part of it.
