Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Gurjeet Singh wrote: > As I read it, he is supportive of the community process that PG follows; I > am not so sure he promotes Postgres though :) I based my comments on discussions I have had with him, not based on his blog. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us Ente

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

As I read it, he is supportive of the community process that PG follows; I am not so sure he promotes Postgres though :) On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Long wrote: > > Greg Smith wrote: > > > I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of t

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Jason Long wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: > > I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for > > reference in case it gets forcibly removed... > > > > Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant > > a 2008 update to "Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL"; wh

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

"=?UTF-8?Q?Grzegorz_Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > which reminds me, of my favourite recent quote: > "Think I'll go fix this while I'm watching the football game ..." Well, the Steelers were up 23-10 at that point, so the game no longer demanded too much attention ...

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > >> >> well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How >> reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step >> ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane d

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Scott Marlowe wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warra

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: > > I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for > reference in case it gets forcibly removed... > > Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a > 2008 updat

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to "Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL"; who would have guessed that Monty woul

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Geoffrey wrote: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about hal

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to "Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL"; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the re

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 08:05:48PM +, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. That will provide excellent comfort to the users. HaplessUser: Your replication crashed and took all of my slaves with it, and then my primary database crashed

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

2008/12/1 Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'd rather do the paritioning by hand and use slony and know it works > than rely on the code that's doing all that in mysql. If your server > crashes while updating a partitioned table, you could lose all the > data in it. Replication can mysteriou

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:05 +, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html > > All interesting, but especially the

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html >> >> All interesting, but especially the part

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html > > All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the > heading "So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ?" - must-read f

[GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading "So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ?" - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-gen