Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
От | Curt Sampson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.44.0208021211280.7658-100000@angelic.cynic.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote: > For some reason, > many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is > never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code > base. That is, of course, completely untrue. Where does this "of course" come from? I've been programming for quite a while now, and in my experience every line of code costs you something to maintain. As long as there's any interaction with other parts of the system, you have to test it regularly, even if you don't need to directly change it. That said, if you've been doing regular work on postgres code base and you say that it's cheap to maintain, I'll accept that. > > Then explain why SQL99 has included inheritance ? > > Yes please. I'm very interested in hearing a rebuttal to this one. Because SQL99 is non-relational in many ways, so I guess they figured making it non-relational in one more way can't hurt. I mean come on, this is a language which started out not even relationally complete! cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're alllight. --XTC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: