RE: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL ?

From: Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Brett W(dot) McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL ?
Date: 2000-12-11 06:54:28
Message-ID: 183FA749499ED311B6550000F87E206C0C9499@srv.ctlno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> "Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net> writes:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Matthew wrote:
> >> [Matthew] Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
> >> compatibility module? An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that
> >> would add many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.
>
> > I think it would be wasted effort. I would rather the developers focus
> on
> > PostgreSQL, not MySQL, or Access, or whatever.
>
> I agree that the key developers shouldn't spend much time on such a
> thing, but on the other hand this isn't a project that requires a key
> developer to get done. If Matthew or someone else feels like spending
> time on it, I wouldn't object...
>
[Matthew] I agree also, I didn't mean to imply that a core
developer work on it. I was just asking if this was a project that would
interest people. If it has enough demand I would get started on it. I
don't know a whole lot about mysql, but getting a function list and
comparing it to postgre shouldn't be too hard.

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brett W. McCoy 2000-12-11 07:45:47 RE: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL ?
Previous Message Denis Perchine 2000-12-11 05:01:37 Re: overhead of "small" large objects