| > This is not a feature of SQL, this is a feature of the database Yet they always seem tied together eh? Somehow the conventions are stuck together, and that then affects how our systems work. > Postgres supports both Perl and Python extensions that run in the RDBMS process But I'm talking about not having to use the RDBMS process. If I have a text file on the disk, I can use a million different programs to access it. I don't have to run one program through another program just to open, read, write, and close the file with any program. Why don't we design our databases to work this way? > Very few people use them because running in the RDBMS process means that you can break the RDBMS process in really bad ways Yes, it does sound bad. That's why I'd prefer an indirect method rather than having to wedge access through the RDBMS > So if you consider other processes that communicate with the database and then show views of that over other protocols, that describes most of the backend apps in the world. Yep! We architect entire systems-of-systems just because the model for our data management in an RDBMS is too rigid. We're building spaceships to get to the grocery store because we haven't yet figured out roads and cars. |