| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | francois(dot)perou(at)free(dot)fr |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2010-03-06 21:01:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4B92C292.5020605@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
François Pérou wrote:
>
> My opinion is that PostgreSQL should accept any MySQL syntax and return
> warnings. I believe that we should access even innodb syntax and turn it
> immediately into PostgreSQL tables. This would allow people with no
> interest in SQL to migrate from MySQL to PostgreSQL without any harm.
>
This is just fantasy. Doing this will destabilize Postgres, cost us
hugely in maintenance effort and LOSE us users.
If we do this why the heck should we stop there? Why shouldn't we
replicate the broken behaviour of every major database out there?
It's really time for you to stop making this suggestion, once and for
all. It is just not going to happen. Moreover MySQL appears to be
fracturing into a bunch of different forks, so why now, of all times,
would we want to adopt its broken syntax?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Waihi | 2010-03-07 20:55:19 | Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-03-06 20:48:50 | Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-06 21:33:54 | Re: Explicit psqlrc |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-03-06 20:50:55 | Re: Using GIN/Gist to search the "union" of two indexes? |