A few years back, along with some folks at MySQL and in the open source community, we helped kick off a campaign against software patents in Europe.  This was a hot topic and surprisingly, it seemed no large companies were willing to step up the fight.  As a relatively young company, MySQL had a lot to lose if someone went on the attack against us using patents.  While we had a very small number of patents in our portfolio (mostly through acquisitions), we help them only for defensive purposes.  

It's been interesting to see some stories come out from NPR's Planet Money and This American Life shows that shed more light on software patents.  The …

Recent news that Microsoft and Barnes & Noble agreed to partner on the Nook e-reader line rather than keep fighting over intellectual property suggests the prospect of more settlement and fewer IP suits in the industry. However, the deal further obscures the blurry IP and patent landscape currently impacting both enterprise IT and consumer technology.

It is good to see settlement — something I’ve been calling for, while also warning against patent and IP aggression. However, this settlment comes from the one conflict in this ongoing war that was actually shedding some light on the matter, rather than further complicating it.

See the full article at TechNewsWorld.

At OSCON in 2006, I followed sessions that discussed how open source companies would fare when big corporations come in. Back then there were only a handful of examples of big companies purchasing small open source companies. Three years later, we've witnessed MySQL AB get swallowed by Sun, only to have Sun be swallowed by Oracle. Now there are more open questions than ever and at least three versions of MySQL that are jockeying to continue the MySQL blood-line. Yesterday I attended talks by two of these groups and I have to wonder how the MySQL game will play itself out over time.

The first talk I attended was: "Drizzle: Status, Principles, and Ecosystem" where a number of Drizzle developers shared their thoughts about this project. …

Earlier I reported about two crashes related to MySQL 5.0.22 on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS.

I think those bugs show a lack of testing on the side of Cannonical/Ubuntu. And for MySQL there is a quite good test suite available, so it's not rocketsience.

There are multiple reasons why you could use the MySQL Test Framework:
1. Test if bug you previously experienced exists in the version you are using or planning to use.
2. Test if configuration changes have a good or bad result on the stability of mysqld.
3. Test if important functions still return the correct results (especially importand for financial systems)

$ echo "SELECT @@version;" > version.test
$ cp version.test version.result
$ mysql < version.test >> version.result
$ mysqltest --result-file=version.result …

1. Set this variable
thread_stack = 265K

2. Execute this query
mysql> SELECT 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
…

I found a new crasher in the MySQL 5.0 version which ships with Ubuntu 6.06 LTS.

> SELECT * FROM (SELECT mu.User FROM mysql.user mu UNION SELECT mu.user FROM mysql.user mu ORDER BY mu.user) a;
ERROR 2013 (HY000): Lost connection to MySQL server during query

The bug report: LP392236

On MySQL 5.0.51 on Debian stable it returns this error (like it should):
ERROR 1054 (42S22): Unknown column 'mu.user' in 'order clause'

The correct query should be like this (Using culumn a number):
> SELECT * FROM (SELECT mu.User FROM mysql.user mu UNION SELECT mu.user FROM mysql.user mu ORDER BY 1) a;

Ever since Sun Microsystems agreed to acquire MySQL back in 2008, there has been a fair bit of uncertainty and chaos surrounding the world’s most popular Open Source database. With many big names in the MySQL community pulling in different directions and the recent Oracle / Sun acquisition, the choice of which Open Source database to use is now easier than ever – PostgreSQL. …