Le jeudi 27 août 2009 à 14:27 -0500, Jaime Casanova a écrit :
> the point was that if we simply were saying: hey! mysql can interpret
> this, make postgres do the same then we could end up with a lot of
> broken stuff... just because mysql users think is wonderful to not
> have to write sane code..
2009/8/27 Rob Wultsch :
>
> And that behavior has changed to be sane in 5.0+, iirc.
>
5.0.12+ actually... that is stated in the same thread...
the point was that if we simply were saying: hey! mysql can interpret
this, make postgres do the same then we could end up with a lot of
broken stuff... j
2009/8/27 Jaime Casanova :
> 2009/8/27 Jean-Michel Pouré :
>>
>> Otherwise, replicating some MySQL SQL syntax will not work.
>>
>> As you know, people willing to use PostgreSQL replication are possibly
>> already MySQL replication users. So if they test and PostgreSQL fails,
>> this is too bad.
>>
2009/8/27 Jean-Michel Pouré :
>
> Otherwise, replicating some MySQL SQL syntax will not work.
>
> As you know, people willing to use PostgreSQL replication are possibly
> already MySQL replication users. So if they test and PostgreSQL fails,
> this is too bad.
>
yeah! but some times the reason MyS
Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 15:51 -0700, Josh Berkus a écrit :
> I doubt this would be an accurate description of all Drupal
> developers.
My opinion was :
Before adding replication to PostgreSQL, it would be better to support a
basic set of MySQL syntax seems relevant:
DELETE FROM table1, table
Tom Lane írta:
> Greg Stark writes:
>
>> Actually it always bothered me that we don't have implicit casts from
>> integer->boolean. I can't see any ambiguity or unintentional effects
>> this would cause problems with. Am I missing something?
>>
>
> Personally, as an old Pascal-lover, I alw
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark writes:
Actually it always bothered me that we don't have implicit casts from
integer->boolean. I can't see any ambiguity or unintentional effects
this would cause problems with. Am I missing something?
Personally, as an old Pascal-lover, I always thought that C's f
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> Actually it always bothered me that we don't have implicit casts from
>> integer->boolean. I can't see any ambiguity or unintentional effects
>> this would cause problems with. Am I missing something?
>
> Personally, as an ol
Greg Stark writes:
> Actually it always bothered me that we don't have implicit casts from
> integer->boolean. I can't see any ambiguity or unintentional effects
> this would cause problems with. Am I missing something?
Personally, as an old Pascal-lover, I always thought that C's failure
to dist
Jean-Michel,
> The truth is that Drupal core developers do not believe fixing the
> prev/next link script is important. They don't care for SQL and don't
> understand the relationship between SQL queries and CPU cycles.
I doubt this would be an accurate description of all Drupal developers.
The
Greg Stark wrote:
> Actually it always bothered me that we don't have implicit casts
> from integer->boolean. I can't see any ambiguity or unintentional
> effects this would cause problems with. Am I missing something?
I'd be at least a little bit concerned about how such automatic
casting to
Greg Stark wrote:
> > PostgreSQL and MySQL do not use the same concatenation funtions (D6 only,
> > fixed in D7)
>
> Personally I don't see a problem with us adding this to Postgres now
> that we have variadic functions. I'm not sure why others are so
> dead-set against it; it seems a lot less bu
2009/8/26 Greg Stark :
>> PostgreSQL does not automatically cast data between BOOLEAN and INT
>> PostgreSQL does not automatically cast data between INT and VARCHAR/CHAR
>
> These are things we've gone out of our way to NOT do. At some cost
> too. Being loose here makes it easy to miss errors in yo
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré :
> Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 22:06 +0100, Greg Stark a écrit :
>> That
>> would be unfortunate because I think there are 2 or 3 real
>> improvements hidden in your list.
>
> Then explain I don't have your skills.
What I'm suggesting is that you should take a different
Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 16:56 -0400, Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
> Have you tried Drupal 7? It's said to have many of these corrected.
> Maybe you should stop wasting your time with 6.x.
I am running a large community on the Net and people would like to
migrate our framework to Drupal. We agreed
Le mercredi 26 août 2009 à 22:06 +0100, Greg Stark a écrit :
> With your current approach you're likely to get dismissed out of hand,
> not unlike what I can well believe happened in the Drupal world.
This is the case.
> That
> would be unfortunate because I think there are 2 or 3 real
> improvem
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré :
> After reading my story, I hope we can agree that noone is going to port
> any MySQL code to PostgreSQL ever. This demands too much intellectual
> efforts. Many people will migrate from DB2 and Oracle to PostgreSQL. But
> no MySQL developer is going to use PostgreSQL
Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
> We are not leaving in a perfect world and there no reason to achieve
> perfectness. So let's support this list, please:
> http://drupal.org/node/14
Have you tried Drupal 7? It's said to have many of these corrected.
Maybe you should stop wasting your time with 6.x.
Jean-Michel Pour? wrote:
> To tell you how lazy MySQL people are is my last experience in the
> Drupal world. In short, on my devel server, Drupal previous/next link
> display SQL script returns 21.000 rows.
Yes, we have seen this too. We have always targeted serious database
developers, and tho
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré :
> After reading my story, I hope we can agree that noone is going to port
> any MySQL code to PostgreSQL ever. This demands too much intellectual
Surely this is a complete overgeneralization...
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgre
> Second, we're not going to support MySQL's *bugs* and *bad design
> decisions* which is what lazy developers actually want; they want
> something exactly the same as MySQL, including bugs. If they want
> that,
> they can use MySQL. We are not MySQL, and trying to out-MySQL MySQL
> is
> stupid,
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 12:17:25 pm Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Yes. PostgreSQL should be able to run MySQL code quoted here:
> >
> > This is a prerequisite for people to be willing to test and adopt
> > PostgreSQL. People are not willing to debug frameworks like Drupal and
> > port them to Postgre
>> So when you talk about focusing on usablility improvements you mean
>> that priority should be given to supporting MySQL-specific syntax
>> extensions and ensuring that there are no queries where the MySQL
>> optimizer comes up with a more efficient plan than PostgreSQL?
Well, I'd be intereste
23 matches
Mail list logo
