| From: | Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
| Date: | 2002-07-30 09:51:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1028022705.12616.51.camel@atlas |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[don't cc: me, please.]
[please leave proper attribution in]
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 10:45, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > We inherited inheritance from Berkeley. I doubt we would have added it
> > > ourselves. It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
[Inheritance]
> > How about dropping it, then?
[...]
> Why? It doesn't hurt you personally!
That's correct.
> Plus, it would annoy a _boatload_ of
> existing inheritance users.
Bruce Momjian:
> It causes too much complexity in other parts of the system.
That's one reason.
Curt Sampson wrote:
> I'm still waiting to find out just what advantage table inheritance
> offers. I've asked a couple of times here, and nobody has even started
> to come up with anything.
and
> there is nothing whatsoever that table inheritance does that the
> relational model does not handle
That's the other one.
cheers
-- vbi
--
secure email with gpg http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro | 2002-07-30 10:17:52 | Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-30 08:45:43 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |