Dear all,

Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
now theirs one more

http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html

Does this concern anyone.

What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
though we dont sell) now.

What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:[color=blue]
> Dear all,
>
> Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
> now theirs one more
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>
> Does this concern anyone.
>
> What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
> though we dont sell) now.
>
> What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.[/color]

1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
are getting optimized every new release.

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Martin Marques wrote:[color=blue]
> El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:[color=green]
>>Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
>>now theirs one more
>>http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>>Does this concern anyone.
>>What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
>>though we dont sell) now.
>>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.[/color]
> 1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
> lets say 2 years maybe?
> 2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
> are getting optimized every new release.[/color]

Well, let's consolidate few points so as to save us some energy.

1. As a open source project, competition is no threat to postgresql. If mysql is
gaining, fine for that that community.

2. Mysql has long way to go to be on par with postgresql. The differences are
known and wildly documented. Meanwhile postgresql project will continue to fix
bugs, add features and attempt to be better with every next release. Of course,
this is business as usual.

3. If mysql works for you and is the best tool for the job, use it. but don't
forget to evaluate latest postgresql release at least once an year.

I think that covers most of the sensible points that can come up in such a
discussion..What say?

Shridhar




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Having worked with both MySQL and Postgresql, there is one thing that most
people overlook with all the hoopla about new features in MySQL. One that I
find impacts my clients and helps with their decision to move to Postgresql.
When using the new features on OLD MySQL databases, most of the time this means
a major coversion. You can't use the old "MyISAM" tables, you have to add the
new features, use their new Innodb table structure, and write all the stuff
anyway. Add in the table redesign, and normalization that didn't happen
originally and the decision about the database becomes a business decision, not
a political argumen. My argument at that point is, "Postgresql was designed to
do those things, they are not 'added features'. They are new to MySQL and
since you have to re-write anyway..."

So far, the clients have chosen Postgresql. Many of them are frustrated with
the lack of features in MySQL and simply are ready to move for the right
reasons. MySQL is great for a simple, fast, list manager, but once you start
needing constraints, functions, or any other 'normal' database features it
falls apart. I think the Postgresql team is doing well, they focus on
Postgresql, not what MySQL might do.

I say keep up the good work!
--
Ken Harris
Senior Consultant
http://www.lhinfo.com
(410) 597-8916



Quoting Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>:
[color=blue]
> El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:[color=green]
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
> > now theirs one more
> >
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
> >
> > Does this concern anyone.
> >
> > What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
> > though we dont sell) now.
> >
> > What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.[/color]
>
> 1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
> lets say 2 years maybe?
> 2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
>
> are getting optimized every new release.
>
> --
> select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
> Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
> Universidad Nacional
> del Litoral
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>[/color]


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dear all,
>
> Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
> now theirs one more
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>
> Does this concern anyone.[/color]

It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds on
many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The strategy of
misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you don't need
stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views" didn't
work forever. So they have to add or propose those features one by one.

Let's see them when they're done, okay?


Jan

--
#================================================= =====================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================= = JanWieck@Yahoo.com #


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Dear Martin Marques,
[color=blue][color=green]
>>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
>lets say 2 years maybe?
>2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
>are getting optimized every new release.
>
>[/color]
2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is
going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.

NOTE :
Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same
time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned
with slow growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new
feature of MySQL today or tommorow will be a threat.
And may push back PostgreSQL for enterprise class applications.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

> 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is [color=blue]
> going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
> with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.
>
> NOTE :
> Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same
> time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned
> with slow growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new
> feature of MySQL today or tommorow will be a threat.
> And may push back PostgreSQL for enterprise class applications.
>
> Regards,
> Vishal Kashyap.[/color]

All this time complaining about how popular MySQL is would be better spend
to make the docs more clear. I have talked about this before..

I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to find
whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would expect it in
the docs.

Most will stick with what they know instead of taking many many hours to
investigate what it takes to developer with PG as database.



B.





---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dear Martin Marques,
>
> 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is
> going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
> with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.[/color]

How do you figure that? In 2 years, we will be that much further along
with our 'cutting edge features' that MySQL will still have a large gap to
catch up with ... there has been alot of commit's recently by Bruce for
the native windows port, and each release to date has always been that
much faster then the previous one ...
[color=blue]
> Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same
> time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned with slow
> growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new feature of MySQL
> today or tommorow will be a threat. And may push back PostgreSQL for
> enterprise class applications.[/color]

I don't believe so ... ppl aren't going to wait 2 years for what
PostgreSQL has now to implement ... and once implemented, they aren't
going to switch everything over to MySQL just because they finally have
that feature ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> expect it in the docs.[/color]

Like ... ?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.

Dave

On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> > expect it in the docs.[/color]
>
> Like ... ?
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>[/color]


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Dear Jan Wieck ,
[color=blue][color=green]
>> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>>
>> Does this concern anyone.[/color]
>
> It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds
> on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The
> strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah
> views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those
> features one by one.[/color]

Thats very well said
I never thought of this. Now I have a tool to bash my peers who are
tilted toward MySQL .
[color=blue]
> Let's see them when they're done, okay?[/color]

Joining you :-)

Regards ,
Vishal Kashyap


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
[color=blue]
> One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
> doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
> interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.[/color]

Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that
has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control
everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...
[color=blue]
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:[color=green]
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> > > expect it in the docs.[/color]
> >
> > Like ... ?
> >
> > ----
> > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > joining column's datatypes do not match
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>[/color]

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[color=blue]
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>
> Does this concern anyone.[/color]


Well from one perspective MySQL is still playing catch up. While they
are adding
features that they still don't have stable OR that are labelled "Basic
Support", PostgreSQL
has had mature support for a long time.

[color=blue]
> What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
> though we dont sell) now.[/color]


Yes and know. USP is great, but we can argue (and will be able to for a
LONG LONG TIME) that,
"Sure mySQL can do that... sort of."

[color=blue]
>
> What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.[/color]

It is never good to be placid in the industry but I think you will
continue to see PostgreSQL growth.
I get phone calls weekly from people who have come to realize that MySQL
is just a toy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


[color=blue]
>
> Regards,
> Vishal Kashyap.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html[/color]


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:

Jan> It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds
Jan> on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The
Jan> strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
Jan> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah
Jan> views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those
Jan> features one by one.

I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed".

Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
job of integrating them.

So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's
probably already installed on your box.

"PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good
catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it?

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

El Vie 26 Dic 2003 13:18, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:[color=blue]
> Dear Martin Marques,
> [color=green][color=darkred]
> >>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around......
> >lets say 2 years maybe?
> >2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, [/color][/color]
and [color=blue][color=green]
> >are getting optimized every new release.
> >
> >[/color]
> 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is
> going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
> with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.[/color]

Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

[color=blue]
>I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
>started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
>all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed".
>
>Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
>adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
>job of integrating them.
>
>[/color]
In another vein, PHP has added the features as their market
has required them. Yes Perl has more features that PHP but
so what?

PHP works for those who use it. MySQL works for those who
use it.

That I believe is the fundamental problem with PostgreSQL
vs. MySQL. They are different products:

MS Access is a database
MSSQL is a database

Both have SQL capabilities...

Which one would you run for your accounting system?
O.k. I wouldn't run MSSQL for an accounting system either
but I think my point is made...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


[color=blue]
>So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's
>probably already installed on your box.
>
>"PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good
>catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it?
>
>
>[/color]

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

Hi all;

Regarding the questions of MySQL and PostgreSQL, I do expect PostgreSQL to
continue to grow more slowly than MySQL for some time. However MySQL has a
few problems in their approach that PostgreSQL lacks, and in time, there is
no doubt in my mind that, of the open source databases available today, that
PostgreSQL will be the winner.

The problems with MySQL's include:
1: Trying to make the database manager tolerant of user errors by avoiding
raising exceptions. PostgreSQL tries to make the database tolerant of user
errors by raising exceptions where appropriate!

2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the database
manager. This slows their rate of development and we will continue to move
faster than them.

Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree
completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for many
types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make it ideal
for a different set of applications. Many of these are completely opposite
and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to different to compare. I use
both and appreciate both.

MySQL and PostgreSQL are completely different. When I started learning
PostgreSQL, it was a real PITA (version 6.5). I started to learn MySQL
because it was far easier to manage than PostgreSQL was at the time. When I
would develop PostgreSQL apps, I would usually prototype them on MySQL!

But things have changed. PostgreSQL is every bit as easy to use now as MySQL
for most, possibly even all, environments. A Windows port would be nice
(hope it is out soon), but if not, that is what Firebird is for ;-)

Lastly on the need for introspection-- I think we do need introspection.
Not because of any imaginary gains that MySQL has made, but because we will
always do better if we are rethinking and questioning our methodology.
Introspection is always a good thing, and we should not wait for a
competitive need.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
[color=blue]
> 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
> database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
> continue to move faster than them.[/color]

This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less
discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do
it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else
agrees with it ...

The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...
[color=blue]
> Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree
> completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for
> many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make
> it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are
> completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to
> different to compare. I use both and appreciate both.[/color]

I do agree on this one ... I switched over to PHP years back for Web based
apps, since I liked its forms handling (always hated using the CGI modules
for perl) ... but, for straight utilities, perl or shell is still my
favorite ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Hi all,
Comments inline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>; <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>;
<pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

[color=blue]
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
>[color=green]
> > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
> > database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
> > continue to move faster than them.[/color]
>
> This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less
> discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do
> it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else
> agrees with it ...
>
> The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
> developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...[/color]

Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different
software development methodology than proprietary software development is.
Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the
larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing.

See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the
core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment
whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a
close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to
optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds.
This is a major problem for some open source projects.

I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary
or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for
general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that
Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros to
the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying to
sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in
particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and
MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead of
KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would
choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.

Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but
projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as
trying to do both.

As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is
still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may
fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that
must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting
to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I
have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which
MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.

In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or
long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird
is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as
easy to use as PostgreSQL.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11)[color=blue]
> Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
> with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
> which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)[/color]

Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So
what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked
to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're
really desperate.

PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If
somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say
let them.

What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about
how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I
really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with.

You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every
day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL
extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!".

I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the
superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in -
underinformed bigots.

From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features,
PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest
speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster
with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I
don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case.

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of:[color=blue]
> KDE toolbar icons
> Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
> X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
> Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs[/color]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be
disheveled then we are.

I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity
without actually requiring a full time web-master?


Dave

On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
>[color=green]
> > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
> > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
> > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.[/color]
>
> Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that
> has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control
> everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...
>[color=green]
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> > > > expect it in the docs.
> > >
> > > Like ... ?
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > > joining column's datatypes do not match
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > joining column's datatypes do not match
> >[/color]
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>[/color]


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Jan Wieck (Friday 26 December 2003 10:02)[color=blue]
> The strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views"
> didn't work forever.[/color]

PRECISELY my point! But so many ignorant users fall for this and babble on
saying the exact same thing when they come attacking you for choosing
PostgreSQL.

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of:[color=blue]
> KDE toolbar icons
> Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
> X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
> Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs[/color]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Chris Travers (Saturday 27 December 2003 06:44)[color=blue]
> In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or
> long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird
> is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
> learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as
> easy to use as PostgreSQL.[/color]

It all depends on the user community. People thought Christianity was a joke
and would never be a serious threat to the pre-existing religions - look at
the state of things today :\.

You can blind yourselves to the users, but do this for long enough, and you'll
discover you don't have any users, no matter how great your product might be.

We live in a very strange world where people use what they see advertised the
most, or what the most of their friends have told them to use, instead of
doing actual research and making an educated decision. As a PostgreSQL user,
I've had to deal with at least 20-30 MySQL nazis telling me that *I'm* the
ignorant and accursed one, whereas I've met one guy who likes PostgreSQL.

But I do not think the database needs improvement...IMHO it's already quitea
lot better than MySQL. I think popular opinion needs to be less ignorant.
And I don't know how to suggest doing that.

P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? Uh-oh...

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of:[color=blue]
> KDE toolbar icons
> Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
> X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
> Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs[/color]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:[color=blue]
> P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
> open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser?
> Uh-oh...[/color]

Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/

Shridhar


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared
to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres?

Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core
product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep
looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh
and current.

As long time Oracle developer recently converted to Postgres, I think that
you would all do better to use Oracle as your benchmark instead of MySQL.
Oracle has become the enterprise defacto DB standard (through marketing
and general capability). But Oracle certainly isn't perfect - it has some
stinkers in it. The worst thing is lock-in. You get some nice features,
and then once you're committed it is very hard to get away again.

Don't just focus on the open source market, because I'll bet that there
are many commercial projects and enterprises who don't need much of a
nudge, and who would be willing to put Postgres in instead of Oracle,
Sybase or DB2.

I know the DBA of one company paying $800,000 a year in Oracle licences
and support contracts that was seriously looking at Postgres to provide
the same capability for MUCH less cost. Unfortunately, there were a few
show stoppers; no nested transaction support (#pragma autonomous), a
(perceived) lack of replication/distributed solutions, no real file level
admin (tablespaces etc). And the last straw was the amount of effort that
they would have to expend to port their app from Oracle to Postgres - due
in part to relying on features like Oracle's Context cartridge
(free text searching).

Postgres isn't far behind Oracle in terms of catch up on the missing
features, and in many way far exceeds Oracle. I suspect that within a few
versions, Postgres will match or exceed Oracle's capabilities. Right now I
would have no problem advising a client to use Postgres instead of Oracle
(except where one of the show stoppers is an issue).

What will really make sit and pay attention is when you see large
project's and clients migrate from Oracle, DB2, Sybase to postgres, and
when this gets widely reported. Perhaps the biggest danger to Postgres
then is Oracle waking up to a perceived threat from Postgres, and starting
to use its muscle to spread FUD about Postgres.

The best story I heard about Oracle (and I don't know if it's true or
not), is that Oracle would not run their internal support systems on an
Oracle DB up to version 4 (maybe 5) of Oracle due to reliability
concerns...

Stop worrying about MySQL - I'm not sure that you want those users until
they hit a deadend with MySQL and are wanting to trade up to an enterprise
solution.

I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is
GREAT! I'm sold on it!

John Sidney-Woollett

Chris Travers said:[color=blue]
> Hi all,
> Comments inline
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
> To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
> Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>; <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>;
> <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
>
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the[/color][/color][/color]
database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
continue to move faster than them.[color=blue][color=green]
>> This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less[/color][/color]
discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do[color=blue][color=green]
>> it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone[/color][/color]
else[color=blue][color=green]
>> agrees with it ...
>> The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other[/color][/color]
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...[color=blue]
>
> Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very[/color]
different[color=blue]
> software development methodology than proprietary software development[/color]
is.[color=blue]
> Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that[/color]
the[color=blue]
> larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing.
>
> See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when[/color]
the[color=blue]
> core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an[/color]
environment[color=blue]
> whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that[/color]
a[color=blue]
> close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to[/color]
optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds.
This is a major problem for some open source projects.[color=blue]
>
> I have always been a firm believer that software can be either[/color]
proprietary[color=blue]
> or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for[/color]
general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that[color=blue]
> Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading[/color]
distros[color=blue]
> to
> the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In[/color]
trying[color=blue]
> to
> sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in[/color]
particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and[color=blue]
> MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME[/color]
instead[color=blue]
> of
> KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would[/color]
choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.[color=blue]
>
> Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source,[/color]
but[color=blue]
> projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as[/color]
trying to do both.[color=blue]
>
> As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there[/color]
is[color=blue]
> still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it[/color]
may[color=blue]
> fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market[/color]
that[color=blue]
> must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply[/color]
attempting[color=blue]
> to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also[/color]
why[color=blue]
> I
> have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of[/color]
which[color=blue]
> MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.
>
> In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near[/color]
or[color=blue]
> long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists.[/color]
Firebird[color=blue]
> is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to[/color]
learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as[color=blue]
> easy to use as PostgreSQL.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------[/color]
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?[color=blue]
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>[/color]








---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:54:28 +0530 Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:[color=green]
> > P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
> > open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser?
> > Uh-oh...[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/[/color]

note that Firebird (the Interbase spinoff) used the name before
Firebird (the Mozilla spinoff) did.

richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

On 26 Dec 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:[color=blue]
> I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
> started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
> all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed".
>
> Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
> adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
> job of integrating them.[/color]

Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because
it would spell doom for Postgres.

http://www.securityspace.com/s_surve...pachemods.html

Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier
to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my
experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the
same thing.

Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than
MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to
either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use
(since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards).

I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often
further than performance, features and stability.

Cheers,

Chris

--
Christopher Murtagh
Enterprise Systems Administrator
ISR / Web Communications Group
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

Tel.: (514) 398-3122
Fax: (514) 398-2017


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes:

John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is
John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether
John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres?

I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's
problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems
in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL.

I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of
project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk
about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed
with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes.

So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please
continue. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

That's a fair point.

I used to get the same debate from customers when they wanted M$SqlServer,
and I would always try to steer them towards Oracle (even if the starting
point DB was simple). For me this was a no brainer (having used both
products), but it sometimes took a lot of convincing even when Oracle
provided no OS lock in, reliability, scalability, good 3rd party toolsets,
and loads of consultants willing/able to support it.

I'm not sure a comparison matrix is always helpful, because on paper
products can look comparable, but can be wildly different in real use. We
all drive cars, and they get you from A to B - in a paper feature
comparison they can be made to look fairly identical, but their real life
experience can be completely different.

I guess my point was really to use an enterprise database like Oracle as a
yard stick to judge Postgres against. Although the newer versions of
Oracle are becoming bloatware, so you need to be careful!

Compare MySQL to make a case for using Postgres over MySQL, sure. I
understand why you'd want and need to do that.

It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of
features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the
sum total of all the parts.

John Sidney-Woollett


Randal L. Schwartz said:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes:[/color][/color]
>
> John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is
> John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether
> John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres?
>
> I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's
> problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems
> in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL.
>
> I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of
> project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk
> about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed
> with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes.
>
> So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please
> continue. :)
>
> --
> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777
> 0095
> <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
> See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl
> training!
>[/color]


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 27 December 2003 08:29 am, Christopher Murtagh wrote:[color=blue]
> On 26 Dec 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:[color=green]
> > I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
> > started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
> > all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed".
> >
> > Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
> > adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
> > job of integrating them.[/color]
>
> Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because
> it would spell doom for Postgres.
>
> http://www.securityspace.com/s_surve...pachemods.html
>
> Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier
> to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my
> experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the
> same thing.
>
> Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than
> MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to
> either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use
> (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards).
>
> I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often
> further than performance, features and stability.
>[/color]

The problem with "making it easy" is clearly visible with M$ products. Stupid
clicking makes it sooo easy and convenient that anyone with an IQ higher than
a coffee-maker thinks he's a "system administator" just because he can click
onto the contolpanel.
My point is, that postgres is a fully featured database and mysql isn't. There
is only a certain degree of "making it easy" in a complex environment. And
IMHO there should be a certain degree of complexity to handle the system,
otherwise every idiot will call himself database administrator and screw up
things really bad


UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/7c/vjqGXBvRToM4RAuPMAKC7XdErDIma9Ey4GXqGnE4/ZVQPpwCeNx88
rZ3/Ji90E2cd2tTd9lySg3Y=
=s94v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
[color=blue]
>Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared
>to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres?
>[/color]
It's a natural frustration stemming from watching our fellow humans toil
needlessly. This is a study of human psycology that we all do to some
extent and when we see our value of "better product should be rewarded
more than a lesser product" there are cracks in the foundations of our
motives.
[color=blue]
>
>Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core
>product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep
>looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh
>and current.
>[/color]
Understanding the competition is usually neccessary to achieve this.
....
[color=blue]
>
>I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is
>GREAT! I'm sold on it!
>
>[/color]

Agreed.




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For
postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces
applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their
development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get
everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the
official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I
don't see it happening.

Robert Treat

On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote:[color=blue]
> Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be
> disheveled then we are.
>
> I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity
> without actually requiring a full time web-master?
>
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:[color=green]
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
> > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
> > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.[/color]
> >
> > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that
> > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control
> > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...
> >[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> > > > > expect it in the docs.
> > > >
> > > > Like ... ?
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > > >[/color][/color][/color]

--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html