Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu 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
Tom Lane írta:
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu 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
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, table2
2009/8/27 Jean-Michel Pouré j...@poure.com:
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
2009/8/27 Jaime Casanova jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec:
2009/8/27 Jean-Michel Pouré j...@poure.com:
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
2009/8/27 Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com:
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
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...
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 interested in
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 PostgreSQL. We
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, just
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré j...@poure.com:
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
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 those
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.
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré j...@poure.com:
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
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
improvements
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
2009/8/26 Jean-Michel Pouré j...@poure.com:
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
2009/8/26 Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu:
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
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
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu 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
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 gsst...@mit.edu 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
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu 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
23 matches
Mail list logo
