In The Doom of Multiple Storage Engines, Peter talks about how the storage engine concept of MySQL is usually spoken of in positive terms, but there are many negatives.
I have a hard time trying to figure out the deeper meaning behind Peter’s post, given that Percona writes a storage engine for MySQL, XtraDB. Does this mean that Percona will stop developing XtraDB? Does this mean that the Percona Server will diverge farther and farther away from MySQL so that they’re not compatible any more and migrating from MySQL to Percona Server is very difficult?
Or maybe it’s just that Peter is saying one thing and doing the opposite; which just seems wrong because that would be blatant hypocrisy on Percona’s part.
(This idea was a comment on the blog post but seems to be trapped in the spam filter, so I’m posting it; apologies if the comment comes through eventually….)
My own opinion of the issue: Peter is factually correct with what he says. However, it’s nice to have the framework and be allowed to use more than one storage engine, or use exclusively one storage engine that’s not MyISAM.
Interested in working with Sheeri? Schedule a tech call.