Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
Date: 2002-07-31 06:17:50
Message-ID: 25497.1028096270@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Of course we could go the other way and remove support for VIEW's as
> they can be done using a table and a ON SELECT DO INSTEAD rule. 

Two points for Hannu ;-)

Seriously, this entire thread seems a waste of bandwidth to me.
Inheritance as a feature isn't costing us anything very noticeable
to maintain, and so I see no credible argument for expending the
effort to rip it out --- even if I placed zero value on the annoyance
factor for users who are depending on it.  (Which I surely don't.)

It's true that upgrading inheritance to handle features like cross-table
uniqueness constraints or cross-table foreign keys is not trivial.  But
I don't know of any way to handle those problems in bog-standard SQL92
either.  The fact that we don't have a solution to those issues at
present doesn't strike me as a reason to rip out the functionality we
do have.

In short: give it a rest.  There's lots of things we could be more
productively arguing about.  Think about which type conversions should
be implicit, if you need a topic ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-07-31 06:18:41
Subject: Re: Outer join differences
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-07-31 06:13:38
Subject: Re: WAL file location

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group