Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j Post by Stephen Hoffman
As for core development and network services on OpenVMS, SQLite and
PostgreSQL are far more likely to be available for integration with
OpenVMS than would Rdb.
This given the relatively permissive software licenses on SQLite and
PostgreSQL, and also given longstanding Oracle business practices.
But who knows, HPE transferred products and folks to VSI. Maybe Oracle
does, too. But I wouldn't bet that way.
The questions there inevitably involve the skills and scope and focus
and funding of the organizations involved, and of which we likely won't
And various databases including SQLite and PostgreSQL are well suited
to many of the tasks that OpenVMS app developers now have.
Better suited, in various cases. SQLite in particular is nowhere near
as heavyweight as Rdb, having used both.
There are cases where I'd absolutely pick Oracle Rdb, yes. But there
are just as many cases where I'd pick SQLite.
I think it will be extremely rare that Rdb and SQLite are relevant
The market for apps and databases isn't a fixed size. This isn't a
horse race. This is a market here for apps to update and upgrade and
adopt and enhance.
Rdb is heavyweight, expensive, quite capable, cluster-able,
non-portable, and far less than all OpenVMS sites have access to that
Oracle product. And no, I don't expect Oracle will ever offer Rdb at
prices competitive to SQLite and PostgreSQL.
When an app needs the features and scope and support of Rdb, go for it.
But I'd wager that sites with smaller and/or more numerous cases won't
They'll slog through with RMS as that's what is available and
integrated, and emphasis on "slog".
There's a ginormous opportunity that exists between the
increasingly-limited RMS support, and Rdb.
Back to my core open source library comment that started this whole
side-thread, relational databases are now a common part of an operating
system. RMS started out being a common file access and database
mechanism and one that was unusual and useful in the last millennium.
In this more recent era, RMS is limited in comparison, and using RMS is
awkward in comparison to SQLite, PostgreSQL, and Rdb.
And as someone here will undoubtedly misinterpret this as a request to
replace RMS with a relational database, it is not. Again, this isn't a
fixed-size market, different apps have different needs, RMS solves some
problems quite well, and there are app developers with limited
requirements or limited expectations, too. And apps that use RMS can
and should and will continue to operate. And hopefully RMS will also
get extended, as the current record sizes and file sizes and storage
sizes are all, well, limited.
When some of the current RMS apps get reworked, or when new apps are
written, maybe a database is a better fit than an RMS file. Indexed
file definitions are a slog to create and access and update,
particularly in a clustered and mixed-version environment. These sorts
of database operations, updates, and enhancements are vastly easier
with SQLite or PostgreSQL or Rdb. App-defined fixed-sized record fields
are... far too reminiscent of punched cards. Yes, Oracle CDD can be a
help, but the whole approach is still a code-slog.
And yes, maybe some DTR-like app reappears as a front-end for an
integrated relational database, and maybe also language support for
accessing a relational database appears in Fortran, BASIC, and such.
But for now, simply having copies of SQLite or PostgreSQL integrated in
the distribution would be a workable option for many apps.
Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
I see SQLite as an obvious alternative to RMS index-sequential files.
If by "alternative" you mean "vastly more capable than", sure.
Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
PostgreSQL could be an alternative to Rdb, but last I heard it was not
running on VMS yet.
It's wedged behind the lack of SSIO within the C RTL.
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC