Open Source Weblog

MySQL denied that was the case, maintaining that its database architecture enabled it slot in various storage engines but was clearly put in a difficult position by having to renegotiate a contract for InnoDB with Oracle.

That license has now been renewed but that is nowhere near the end of the story. MySQL is also talking up the potential for a new transaction engine developed by Interbase creator Jim Starkey, whose Netfrastructure company MySQL acquired in February.

Database clustering specialist Continuent has also told CBR about plans to work on an alternative with MySQL and while that may or may not bear fruit, CBR is aware of a new partnership for MySQL that definitely will provide the company with another alternative storage engine.

Details will be revealed at the company's MySQL user conference later this month and I am not in a position to divulge any more at this stage, but suffice to say, as it has suggested, MySQL will have a number of alternative transactional engines to take to market.

Would - or indeed could - the company have provided this choice without Oracle's intervention?

Providing a choice of storage engines is potentially confusing, but with Oracle owning InnoDB, potential customers can immediately understand the need for an alternative. It will then be up to MySQL to explain which one fits which usage model - assuming that is how they will be taken to market.

It will be interesting to see how the company manages the provision of this choice to its customer base, but it is clear that the company will no longer be dependent on InnoDB and will have a number of alternatives, some of which may be better suited to the mission critical environments in which MySQL is beginning to be deployed.