| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
| Date: | 2002-07-30 14:10:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20020730141020.GA13322@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:01:35PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> As an implementor I'm always wary of using features nobody else has,
> especially in databases. So, if I'd want postgres to have one thing
> nobody else has, it would be the most complete standard SQL
> implementation - so it would at least be the other products' fault if
> I'd have to do any special porting work to/from postgres.
SQL99 includes inheritance (albeit a somewhat different implementation
than the design in Postgres right now) -- so the "most complete standard
SQL implementation" would need to include inheritance.
I'd say removing inheritence would be a waste of time -- it would
probably be easier to just fix its deficiencies.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-30 14:24:45 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-30 13:52:55 | Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead |