| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
| Date: | 2006-05-19 01:33:16 |
| Message-ID: | 446D205C.9060306@calorieking.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
> And MySQL is much closer to being a competitor now than they were in
> 4.1. And feature-wise they'll probably equal PostgreSQL in the next
> release. Will the features be anywhere near as robust or well thought
> out? No. But in a heck of a lot of companies that doesn't matter.
Don't forget that they got nested transactions and PITR both before us.
They will also shortly have really nice partitioning before us...
...don't underestimate their development speed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-05-19 01:40:01 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-05-19 00:35:02 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-05-19 01:40:01 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-19 00:54:12 | Re: text_position worst case runtime |