Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "David Christensen" <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Wolfgang Wilhelm" <wolfgang20121964(at)yahoo(dot)de>
Subject: Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-03-08 21:17:17
Message-ID: 23065.1268083037@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> TODO "not wanted" entry rewritten to address just this one issue.
> The other issues raise in the original post are valid possible
> enhancements, or is there something else to list?:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-03/msg00257.php

I'm not too sure either way about the other items mentioned there.
But anyway the GROUP BY business is the only one that seems to come up
often enough to justify an explicit "no" listing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2010-03-14 21:38:04 April 3: Test-Fest Day
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-03-08 21:11:09 Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-03-08 21:25:31 Re: disabling log_min_duration_statement from pg_dump?
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2010-03-08 21:12:51 disabling log_min_duration_statement from pg_dump?