| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Oracle, 2005 report card |
| Date: | 2005-02-16 18:28:19 |
| Message-ID: | 25963.1108578499@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 11:13, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Fermilab did have contact information ("mail comments to:") at the
>> bottom of the page. Fermilab's a quite highly respected organization,
>> so I think this page is probably trusted by many.
> Wandering about that page a bit myself, it seems most of this was
> written between the 6.5 and 7.2 versions of PostgreSQL. I don't think
> there's any active tendency towards misinformation, mostly it's just out
> of date.
Right. The question is whether we can get them to update it. The
odds are that the MySQL and Oracle information is just as dated; so
really the only fair way would be for them to redo the whole evaluation
from scratch, which I could well believe they don't have the time for.
It would be good to at least try to get them to label the page with
the versions that they tested, and note that the info is now quite
out of date.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed L. | 2005-02-16 18:41:35 | Re: hung postmaster? |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-02-16 17:39:01 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Oracle, 2005 report card |