Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

From: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
To: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
Date: 2002-08-02 03:39:18
Message-ID: Pine.NEB.4.44.0208021211280.7658-100000@angelic.cynic.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote:

> For some reason,
> many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
> never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code
> base. That is, of course, completely untrue.

Where does this "of course" come from? I've been programming for quite a
while now, and in my experience every line of code costs you something
to maintain. As long as there's any interaction with other parts of
the system, you have to test it regularly, even if you don't need to
directly change it.

That said, if you've been doing regular work on postgres code base and you
say that it's cheap to maintain, I'll accept that.

> > Then explain why SQL99 has included inheritance ?
>
> Yes please. I'm very interested in hearing a rebuttal to this one.

Because SQL99 is non-relational in many ways, so I guess they
figured making it non-relational in one more way can't hurt.

I mean come on, this is a language which started out not even
relationally complete!

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-02 04:07:41 Re: cvs checkout pgsql
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-08-02 01:37:43 Re: Module Portability