| From: | Zeljko Trogrlic <zeljko(at)technologist(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Brett W(dot) McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net>, Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL ? |
| Date: | 2000-12-11 11:23:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5.0.1.4.0.20001211122118.0323cde8@adder |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Easy to find documentation about compatibility will be nice for a start. Maybe a table with PostgreSQL syntax, MySQL etc. syntax and standard SQL-92.
At 02:23 11.12.2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>"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...
>
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wooi K | 2000-12-11 11:46:24 | function that return multiple fields and rows |
| Previous Message | Steve Heaven | 2000-12-11 11:09:56 | Regular expression question |