From: | Franco Bruno Borghesi <franco(at)akyasociados(dot)com(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | dsiebert(at)eclipsecat(dot)com |
Cc: | postgres general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-25 19:42:53 |
Message-ID: | 1061840572.1913.40.camel@taz.oficina |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Initial beta release of plPHP http://www.postgresql.org/news/143.html
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 10:46, David Siebert wrote:
> I learned MySQL then went on to Postgres. I chose postgres for my in
> house project just because of the row locking and transactions. Looking
> back I could have used MySQL. I have yet to use stored procedures or
> many of the high level functions of Postgres however transactions make
> things so much cleaner. I do not think MySQL is a bad system. It works
> well for many people in many situations. I think that MySQL and SAP
> getting together could be very exciting. When it comes to SQL databases
> I would say we have a wealth good choices. This if I use PHP I have to
> use MySQL is a load of tripe. PHP can work just fine with Postgres. I
> hate to even suggest this but has anyone thought of adding PHP to the
> languages that you can use to write stored procedures in Postgres?
>
>
> Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
>
> >On 19 Aug 2003, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Also have anyone tryed to compare the new transaction model in MySQL 4.x
> >>to PostgreSQL ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Bo, I've recently started having to deal with MySQL. (Web sites
> >wanting/using php _need/have-to-have_ MySQL. Their words not mine.) And
> >from going from a "I dislike MySQL" to "I'm really hating MySQL" has been
> >getting easier and easier.
> > My dealings with MySQL are for the 3.xx version but I semi-followed a
> >thread on this several months ago so feel fully qualified to to throw in
> >my views. :-) My take on others research was that MySQL transaction
> >model is a bubble gum and bailing wire add on not an integral part of
> >MySQL. It _was_ tacked onto the top of the database so if either it or
> >MySQL failed you were likely to loose data.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm looking forward to recive even more constructive arguements :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >How about "Friends don't let friends use MySQL"?
> >
> >Hopefully others with a stonger knowledge will provide this.
> >
> >
> >Rod
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Franco Bruno Borghesi | 2003-08-25 19:58:48 | Re: table constraints and performance |
Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2003-08-25 18:36:20 | Re: Replication Ideas |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-25 20:48:33 | Re: postgresql 7.3.2 bug on date '1901-12-13' and '1901-12 |
Previous Message | Jason Tishler | 2003-08-25 18:44:07 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.4 Beta 1 + SSL + Cygwin |