Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 446CC982.2050005@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? ("Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Woodward wrote: >> Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> >>> Maybe a compatability layer isn't worth doing, but I certainly think >>> it's very much worthwhile for the community to do everything possible to >>> encourage migration from MySQL. We should be able to lay claim to most >>> advanced and most popular OSS database. >>> >>> >> We'll do that by concentrating on spiffy features, not compatibility >> layers. I want people to use PostgreSQL because it's the best, not >> because it's just like something else. >> >> > > While I do agree with the ideal, the reality may not be good enough. Even > I, a PostgreSQL user for a decade, have to use MySQL right now because > that is what the client uses. > > Again, there is so much code for MySQL, a MySQL emulation layer, MEL for > short, could allow plug and play compatibility for open source, and closed > source, applications that otherwise would force a PostgreSQL user to hold > his or her nose and use MySQL. > > > If we had infinite resources this might make sense. We don't, so it doesn't. There is a real cost to producing a compatibility layer, and the cost will be those spiffy new features. Let's get recursive queries, MERGE, and a couple more things and they will still be chasing our heels. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: