Re: troubles with postgresql

Ok, thanks everyone, I'll deal with it.

Erwan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gearon" <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net>
To: "erwan ancel" <erwan(dot)ancel(at)free(dot)fr>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] troubles with postgresql

> The reason why, probably, is that the signed type is an SQL standard,
> and unsigned is not. I've noticed that postgres tries to adhere to the
> standard and not do too many extensions, particularly in comparison to
> MySQL.
>
> MySQL has some nice extensions, but you have to really change things to
> go to another database if you've started on MySQL, (as you are
> noticing). That has other drawback. What if you are really successful
> with a design and company, and your site gets big and you get money to
> make it bigger? You decide to go with DB2 or Oracle then, perhaps? You'd
> probably have to make all the same changes to your design to port to
> those databases, since MySQL is less standardized than all of them.
>
> Postgres seems to be trying to be the open source, standards compliant
> DB.
>
> One thing I don't remember seeing in MySQL that might be an extension
> you could use in Postgres is INT8. That's a HUGE number, maybe more than
> the number of atoms in existence! (probably not, but it's big). It comes
> out to 1.844674407371 * 10^19. (That's over a billion, squared). If
> you used that, and forced it unsigned with a check, you'd probably have
> LOTS more room than you'd need in that value range.
> --
>
> Carpe Dancem ;-)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Remember your friends while they are alive
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sincerely, Dennis Gearon
>