Re: Slashdot discussion

From: Travis Bauer <trbauer(at)indiana(dot)edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Slashdot discussion
Date: 2000-07-11 17:06:45
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.21.0007111203320.3686-100000@piccolo.cs.indiana.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Once I ran into a guy who said that the postgres rpm was broken in Red Hat
5.2. This was when I was first getting into postgres. I spent some time
with it and realized that there were a number of things that had to be
done before it would work: creating the postgres users, initializing the
database, getting something into rc.d so it would boot up
automatically. The RPM was not broken, but it was a pain to get postgres
running unless you spent some time reading about it. My experience with
MySQL was less painful, although dealing with user permissions was more
complex.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Bauer | CS Grad Student | IU |www.cs.indiana.edu/~trbauer
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>
> Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
>
> I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
> as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Guenter 2000-07-11 17:11:11 Benchmarks?
Previous Message Alex Bolenok 2000-07-11 14:16:12 PostgreSQL, ODBCExpress and locales

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-07-11 17:07:21 Re: md5 again
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-07-11 17:01:26 Re: md5 again