Interesting choice of words
Just read the article Is it Postgres' time to shine? and one sentence caught my attention:
Postgres is an enterprise Java database, more suitable for carrying corporate data than the Web's consumer data.How do you interpret the first part? That PostgreSQL is a suitable database backend for enterprise Java or that PostgreSQL is written in Java?
My thought was "If I didn't know about PostgreSQL I would think that it was a database system written in Java". What's your take?
(As a side note I don't think that article was particularly interesting but I suspect CNET News to have a fair amount of management among their readers.)
I was bemused by that as well. I also see no harm in using PostgreSQL for backing a web-based application, especially if data integrity is important to you.
Of course PostgreSQL is not a Java database in a technological sense. PostgreSQL has a JDBC driver, but that doesn't make it a "Java database" any more than any other database with a JDBC driver -- which means virtually any RDBMS qualifies.
Perhaps "Java database" is not meant as a description of the technology, but its market and positioning? The article suggests that PostgreSQL is less likely than MySQL to be the choice of programmers using dynamic languages like PHP and Ruby, whereas PostgreSQL is more likely than MySQL to be the choice of programmers using Java.
"Java database" is unfortunately ambiguous.
In the context of the preceding two paragraphs where Mickos contends that MySQL's target market was never the "enterprise IT market", "enterprise Java database" means Postgres is a database suitable for the "enterprise Java" market.
Of course PostgreSQL is not a Java database in a technological sense. PostgreSQL has a JDBC driver, but that doesn't make it a "Java database" any more than any other database with a JDBC driver -- which means virtually any RDBMS qualifies.
