Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:

> Whatever.   You're just dick-waving....
> Except apparently you have no life, oh well, not my problem....
> Again, you're dick-waving and further discussion is not useful....
> Which is it?  The idiot behind door number one or the pendantic boor
> behind door number two?

Uh, yeah. If ad hominem attacks win arguments, I guess you win.
I'll let others decide whether the above arguments are a good reason
to keep table inheritance in postgres.

>
> >>We don't need the binary "integer" type, either.  We could just use
> >>"number".  Yes, operations on "number" are a bit slower and they often
> >>take more space, but ...
> >>
> >>Shall we take a vote :)
> >
> > If you like. I vote we keep the integer type. Any other questions?
>
> Sure ... why the inconsistency without explanation?

Personally I don't find it inconsistent that I want to remove something
that's broken and of dubious utility but keep something that works and
is demonstrably useful. It must be something to do with my dick, I
suppose. But I'll admit, your arguments are beyond me. I surrender.

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