Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7576.1070125303@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments ("Rod K" <rod@23net.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments
Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL |
Список | pgsql-general |
"Rod K" <rod@23net.net> writes: > Paul Thomas wrote: >> Much of the populatity of MySQL seems to stem from PHPs out-of-the-box >> support for it. > This is incorrect. The embedded mysql client library was not added until > PHP4.0 RC1. PHP's popularity existed long before this. The real culprit > causing the popularity of MySQL was it's ubiquity among hosting providers > and the virtual non-existence of PG in that arena. If PG had been more > friendly to shared hosting environments, perhaps this situation wouldn't > have arisen. You are both engaging in the most blatant form of historical revisionism. Of course PHP's support for MySQL didn't drive MySQL adoption --- it was the other way around, PHP adapted to MySQL because that was what was out there. I think "friendly to shared hosting environments" is a made-up reason as well. The real reason PG lost mindshare to MySQL in the early web days is that at the time, PG was hard to install, somewhat buggy, and poorly documented. (Which was not surprising considering that none of these mattered much in its original academic environment.) MySQL didn't do much, maybe, but what it could do it did pretty well and without install/learning curve hassles. We had mostly caught up on those criteria by perhaps 7.1 or 7.2, but the mindshare gap remains. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: