> I haven't used PQ either. In fact, has anyone used PQ in the last > couple years? I wouldn't trust OO to do my databases, but considering > the Sinkhole of Support I'd be likely to experience with PQ (it's in > sources/extra, it's old, it's unsupported), I'd be more inclined to > write an interface to a remote postgresql or MySQL server, or try to > port one of those.
while databases aren't in the unix/plan 9 cannon, i've had jobs where we really did have a database of users, groups, subscriptions, searches, documents, document collections and collection groups. foreign keys a go go. (mysql need not apply.) on a small scale, this is plenty managable in a traditional filesystem. when you need to track ~30 million documents and a couple hundred million searches while insert rows in multiple tables transactionally, a real database is awful nice. while it would be nice to have a beefy plan 9 database, i wouldn't bother porting one even if i needed it. why not figure out what the client protocol is and implement that for plan 9? - erik
