Here are some apparent problems with MySQL 5.0:
- Concurrent ALTER TABLE
- Replicated Session Variables and Concurrent ALTER
TABLE
- BIT indexing that [doesn't] actually uses a BIT!
- SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE ID IN ( SELECT FOO_ID FROM
BAR ) [doesn't use index]
http://www.feedblog.org/2005/10/what
This thread should continue under the proper title
since it's been hi-jacked .
I didn't read your entire post. If you know how to
join a pk and fk it's not difficult to build an
effective diagram on paper and reuse the same schema
for other applications.
> > I think there really is a need for a
On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Alex Turner wrote:
>
>Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting
and
>stopping the database remotely.
>
>
I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSH
I'm just curious, but how does this work for a windows bo
Johan Wehtje wrote:
I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you
would make that comment.
Personlly I think you were right. Access is a good front end, at least
in the sense that it is a hell of a lot better
than anything the OSS community has bothered to come up with. I
I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you would
make that comment.
I think there really is a need for a rich DB client that allows Rapid
development and is easy to link to an office Suite. To be useful to a
business a database needs the applications built on top of it,
Someone trying to stick microsoft yet another place
they don't belong.
--- Johan Wehtje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very much a description of the Business I am in.
>
> For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think
> that as a rich
> Database Client that permits really rapid
> developme
Very much a description of the Business I am in.
For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think that as a rich
Database Client that permits really rapid development of Database driven
applications Access is unbeatable. Pair it with a good Database server
and it is the perfect combination.
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 15:44 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner:
> Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
>
> Alex
>
> On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle
> lets you
...
>
heh... anythings possible ;) I guess we are okay for now then seeing that we are using postgresql with no dblinkg ;)
AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to beconsidered to be complying with the contract you have to se
I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to be
considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in
such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining.
Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you
might well be in brea
Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets youtreat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breachyour contract then? In this case,
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets you
treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breach
your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and Oracle's
separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature aside.
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at
I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our
contract with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases
;), so I'm kind of tied down by the legalese.
I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, but I talked to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner:
...
>
>
>
> If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be to support
> cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a HUGE pain in the ass,
> and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell.
>
> I would switch to Oracle t
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:00:03PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
>
> > >Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting
> > >and stopping the database remotely.
> > >
> > I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have
> > OpenSSH
>
> I'm just curious, but how does t
>>Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and
>stopping the database remotely.>>I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSH
I'm just curious, but how does this work for a windows box?
>>Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access tables in
Actualy to me, it seems like postgres is a perfect partner for MS
Access. Throw out Jet, and use Pgsql. It's infinately
better than Jet, so operating in a Win98 environment seems reasonable
in this scenario.
I swear you could build a business just building MS Access apps on a
Postgresql database
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:32, Chris Travers wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >Strict Mode and Error handling: Not an option, but always on in
> >PostgreSQL. There are still plenty of things that "fall through the
> >cracks" on MySQL, like my previously mentioned problem with column level
> >constr
Alex Turner wrote:
Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1
Right
And it was extended again last year as it was supposed to extend this
last June, and Last June, etc. We will see if it is not extended again
But if you are run
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote:
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
Instance Manager: Uni
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql
hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers.
... I hope their employers appreciate what they've got.
Is there a good way of telling their employe
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:20:47AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> project. I hope their employers appreciate what they've got.
Well, I can tell you that Afilias does.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Actually, the same could be said of Samba and Apache. I'll take one Tom
> Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql hackers go here) over
> 1,000 MySQL hackers.
>
> I wonder what kind of result we would get if we compared somet
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql
> hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers.
Likewise. They probably don't hear it enough, so I hope they're
aware that some of us have a great deal of respect for bot
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:42, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought
> I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate
> dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why
On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:04 PM, CSN wrote:
AFAIK MySQL's fulltext indexing is only supported on
MyIsam tables, so if you want to use it, you lose
ACID,
For me, the fact that to use a feature means one needs to give up
ACIDity ends any debate on which DB to choose, and I'm not even a power
user
> On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
>
> > They have collation and multiple characterset per
table and etc. which actually is from 4.1 (not new in
5.0), and postgresql have only one collation per
database cluster :-(
> > Otherwise I think their features are all there,
but cannot be used
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> - All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
> support
> services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Damn, guess I need to update my resume...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consult
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 13:32 -0500, Dan Armbrust wrote:
> >IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
> >Cloudscape) None of those take-
> >overs has led to a product actually surviving.
> >
> Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now
On 10/7/05, Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing
> > real for them to throw at PostgreSQL.
>
> This just appeared on slashdot...
>
> MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl
Simon Riggs wrote:
> IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
> Cloudscape) and Oracle have previously bought DEC RDB, so both have
> track record of successful competitor take-overs. None of those take-
> overs has led to a product actually surviving.
Informix to some d
But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing
real for them to throw at PostgreSQL.
This just appeared on slashdot...
MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/07/1224213&from=rss
From the linked article...
http://w
IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick,
Cloudscape) None of those take-
overs has led to a product actually surviving.
Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now
opensourced under the name "Derby"
http://db.apache.org/derby/
In this thread, no one has mentioned their dual license, which I think of
as more duplicitous than dual. Neither free as in freedom nor free as in
beer, really.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:45:39 PM:
> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > So, yeah, the above claim
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some
> hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and
> how many other support options users will have if they go under.
A possibly more likely and scary
Am Freitag, den 07.10.2005, 19:00 +0300 schrieb Andrus:
...
> I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free
> software.
>
> So there are the following options :
>
> 1. Use Firebird
> 2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP
> 3. Use Postgres native for XP, Post
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 07:00:27PM +0300, Andrus wrote:
> "Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
> >> > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 You can run PostgreSQL on
> >> > Cygwin on Win98, I think. But ifyo
Andrus wrote:
I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free
software.
So there are the following options :
1. Use Firebird
2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP
3. Use Postgres native for XP, Postgres+cygwin in Win 98
4. Use Postgres native for XP, Sqlite
"Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
>> > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
>> > You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
>> > But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don'
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:45:06AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> >
> > Also, notice the "TYPE innodb" clause of the CREATE TABLE
> > statement. The default table type in MySQL is MyISAM, which
> > doesn't support foreign key contraints at all
On Thursday 06 October 2005 18:18, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> > --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> > > tables in other
> > > servers like they are here. No real direct
> > > equiva
On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote:
> > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
> > You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
> > But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't
> care much about your data :)
>
> My goal is to allow my application demo, tr
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql
"Douglas McNaught" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Andrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native
>> Windows
>> Postgres?
>
> I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98
> will nev
"Tony Caduto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with
>
>>unicode support.
>>Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ?
>>
>>
> You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows
"Andrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native Windows
> Postgres?
I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98
will never support.
-Doug
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with
unicode support.
Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ?
You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows 98.
I don't have access to a win98 box to really test, but it *should* work.
--
To
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
> You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think.
> But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't
care much about your data :)
My goal is to allow my application demo, trial and development versions to
run in every Windows.
If c
Scott Marlowe wrote:
It's just where they're defined. See this bug for an explanation:
And a table-level foreign-key can involve more than one column of course.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9'
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
(...)
> > > Are you aware of the MySQL Gotchas website (just google it)? Any time
> > > you see MySQL being stupid about somethin
So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some
hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and
how many other support options users will have if they go under.
Well I can say that Command Prompt will support their migration to
PostgreSQL fully
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
>> support services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
> Oh the irony
Actually, AFAIR the *only* such company that's gone under was Great
Bridge; and in their case i
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
support
services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Oh the irony
Command Prompt, Inc...
Doing PostgreSQL since 1997.
Profitable since 1997.
No debt since 1997.
Oh... and of course, no outsi
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread
> thought I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are
> of a delicate dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked
> them
I had a similar experience speaking to the MySQL folks
at (the last) COMDEX. After trying to get them to
explain how their licenses work, I was even more
confused (and two reps even gave conflicting info).
CSN
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and
seeing this thre
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought
I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate
dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why I
should use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL and was quite surpris
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > > getting fixed and probably won't.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote:
>
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> > tables in other
> > servers like they are here. No real direct
> > equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> > but dblink provides similar functio
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:26AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> Information Schema: MySQL's support of this looks fairly extensive.
But PostgreSQL's is pretty good, too, last I looked.
> Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and
> stopping the database remotely.
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:40 -0700, CSN wrote:
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> > tables in other
> > servers like they are here. No real direct
> > equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> > but dblink provides similar functionality.
>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a table level, it simply
--- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> > >> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there
> any new
> > >> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 th
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
warning, or notice
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:35, CSN wrote:
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE
> > bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically,
> > while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a table level, i
--- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> tables in other
> servers like they are here. No real direct
> equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> but dblink provides similar functionality.
Would that be possible with table partitions? Or
Slony?
CSN
Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1
AlexOn 10/6/05, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote:> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 t
Andrus wrote:
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> > PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> > lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
>
> There is a LOT of cu
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote:
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> > PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> > lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in W
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new comparable
> > features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in PostgreSQL up to the
> forthcoming
> > 8.1? AFAIK, PG just lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
>
> There is a LOT of customers runni
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a tabl
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
There is a LOT of customers running Windows 98 .
Now this is rather useful in my opinion. I will be passing it on to some
of my collegues.
Aly.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and pro
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
> warning, or
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:50:47PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >More generally, it's worth making the point that a lot of MySQL's "brand
> >new in 5.0" features have been in Postgres for a *long* time, and are
> >therefore likely to be both more stable and better-performing than
> >MySQL's f
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote:
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
Bit type: Postgresql supports binary string alre
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> >> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> >> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> >> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AF
> They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
> actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
> collation per database cluster :-(
> Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
> togather most of them (you can have foreign k
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather most of them (you can have foreign key, but no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CSN) writes:
> I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
> is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
No.
XA is an interface to allow having updates take place across multiple
databases.
That would mean that you do some updates on one DB, others on another,
1:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?
>
>
> I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
> is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
>
> CSN
>
>
> --- &
I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
CSN
--- "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any
> new
> > comparable features in MyS
Am Mittwoch, den 05.10.2005, 18:37 -0700 schrieb CSN:
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> MySQL 5.0 new features
> http:/
More generally, it's worth making the point that a lot of MySQL's "brand
new in 5.0" features have been in Postgres for a *long* time, and are
therefore likely to be both more stable and better-performing than
MySQL's first cut at them.
Some specific things could be: Their "initial support" f
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
>> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
>> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
>> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
>> lacks updatable views (which are on the
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> MySQL 5.0 new features
> http://dev.mys
Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
MySQL 5.0 new features
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-5-0-nutshell.html
Thanks,
CSN
87 matches
Mail list logo