Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

From: "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "John DeSoi" <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date: 2006-05-18 19:11:09
Message-ID: 17994.24.91.171.78.1147979469.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> Maybe a compatability layer isn't worth doing, but I certainly think
>> it's very much worthwhile for the community to do everything possible to
>> encourage migration from MySQL. We should be able to lay claim to most
>> advanced and most popular OSS database.
>>
>
> We'll do that by concentrating on spiffy features, not compatibility
> layers. I want people to use PostgreSQL because it's the best, not
> because it's just like something else.
>

While I do agree with the ideal, the reality may not be good enough. Even
I, a PostgreSQL user for a decade, have to use MySQL right now because
that is what the client uses.

Again, there is so much code for MySQL, a MySQL emulation layer, MEL for
short, could allow plug and play compatibility for open source, and closed
source, applications that otherwise would force a PostgreSQL user to hold
his or her nose and use MySQL.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-05-18 19:17:24 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-05-18 19:04:12 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-05-18 19:17:24 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-05-18 19:04:12 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?