[Lazarus] MS Access file - is it 'accessible' concurrently ?

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl.lazarus at telemetry.co.uk
Thu Sep 8 15:15:36 CEST 2011

michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2011, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
>>>>> If that is a factor for you, you might want to look at other
>>>>> databases, such as Firebird (easy to run as embedded, too),
>>>>> PostgreSQL, Oracle, or perhaps MySQL.
>>>> Which one requires least setup/dependencies and has least steep 
>>>> learning
>>>> curve ?
>>> Firebird is the easiers and smallest by FAR! At it has many more
>>> feature - at least compared to MySQL. So small doesn't mean less
>>> features here.
>> But which variant of Firebird? If I recall correctly there are three, 
>> I was prodding at it a bit a few months ago and came to the conclusion 
>> that Firebird classic might be a viable alternative to PostgreSQL 
>> since it provided an equivalent to the listen/notify commands.
> As far as I know, they are equivalent in exposed functionality since 
> version 2.1.
> The only difference is how they handle concurrent connections, multiple CPU
> cores and the cache.

Does that include asynchronous notifications (I forget what Firebird 
calls these, but similar to Postgres's listen/notify) across sessions 
and users? I am very likely wrong, but I got the impression that one of 
the variants was file-access-only, and wasn't expecting that one to 
handle notifications.

Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

More information about the Lazarus mailing list