From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, luuk(at)wxs(dot)nl |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Date: | 1999-10-07 13:15:54 |
Message-ID: | 37FC9D0A.A37F79F2@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> My opinion on this tends to be that, in the HAVING case, we are the only
> one that doesn't support it w/o aggregates, so we altho we do follow the
> spec, we are making it slightly more difficult to migrate from 'the
> others' to us...
We follow the spec in what we support, but the spec *does* allow
HAVING w/o aggregates (and w/o any GROUP BY clause).
Tom, imho we absolutely should *not* emit warnings for unusual but
legal constructs. Our chapter on "syntax" can start addressing these
kinds of topics, but the backend probably isn't the place to teach SQL
style...
> Benchmarks, IMHO, always try to favor the 'base product' that is being
> advertised...but, more often then not, its because the person doing the
> benchmarking knows that product well enough to be able to 'tweak' it to
> perform better...Luuk, so far as I believe, is willing to be "educated in
> PostgreSQL"...I don't think its right for us to stifle that, is it?
Right. Sorry Luuk for going off on ya...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-10-07 13:30:44 | Re: [HACKERS] psql and comments |
Previous Message | Alessio Bragadini | 1999-10-07 11:43:30 | (no subject) |