Re: [GENERAL] interesting PHP/MySQL thread

Hi,

It is really sad that you guys could not respond to a commentary note about
PG that also complemented mysql. The responses I have received are not from
scientists that use critical thinking, they are from mad little children
that want to be heard and very much want to be *right*. Please see the mysql
change logs for the past two years if you want to compare lists of
improvments, both are very long. On the one grown up response to my note,
so it is correct that PostgreSQL has Replication as part of itself not a
third part tool? I would be interested in looking at that. As of two years
ago I was pretty certain that only some third part tools existed, but I
would be happy to be wrong in that.

Thanks,

Eric

At 12:29 PM 6/23/03 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> 3.2.23 was a LONG time ago. One thing I like about mysql is that they are
>> constantly making major improvements.
>
>What?? What "major" improvements? They haven't had a major improvement for
>years! Their roadmap has had "foreign key support" on it back when I first
>started using it 5 years ago!!!
>
>In that same time, PostgreSQL has added:
>
>* write-ahead log
>* full subselect support
>* almost all sql92 constructs
>* schemas
>* domains
>* constraints
>* triggers
>* rules
>* casts, conversions
>* full support for different encodings
>* prepared queries
>* dependency tracking
>* set-returning-functions
>* table statistics based query planner
>* full transaction support
>* unlimited field sizes, all of it can be indexed instead of the first n
>bytes!
>* thousands of nameless improvements
>* information_schema
>* hash aggregates
>* PLUS we already had all the "new" stuff that MySQL is adding (eg. GIS,
>rtree indexes)
>
>And what has MySQL done? Replication and built-in full text indexing?
>UNIONs as well - hooray! Big deal.
>
>> I have asked this before, where is
>> Replication with PostgreSQL? If there was a system that could handle more
>> than one master without hacking, I would seriously look into switching to
>> PostgreSQL again. Currently mysql can't handle more than one master
>cleanly.
>> Lack of built in Replication is the main thing that continues to keep us
>> from using PostgreSQL. All of the little, "baby can't learn how to
>program
>> or write SQL functions" don't do crap for me, but Replication is a large
>> part of our network structure, we can't do without it and we certainly
>don't
>> want to use a third party product. Patching together tools like what
>happens
>> with a qmail install is not a system I want to be responsible for. And yet
>I
>> like qmail a great deal, and I like what I have seen of PostgreSQL.
>
>Replication is a big feature, and it happens to be one that PostgreSQL
>doesn't really have. If you NEED it, then PostgreSQL might not be for you.
>However, the entire .org domain is run of replicated PostgreSQL servers
>using eRserver I think. Why don't you want to use a 3rd party product?
>
>Chris
>

(250) 655 - 9513 (PST Time Zone)

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant