From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ronald Cole <ronald(at)forte-intl(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL? |
Date: | 2000-12-04 21:10:08 |
Message-ID: | 6899.975964208@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ronald Cole <ronald(at)forte-intl(dot)com> writes:
> Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with
> Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an
> SQL front-end on Postgres.
Right; original Postgres used a query language called "POSTQUEL",
which was sort of like SQL but not compatible.
> AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was jettisoned early on for
> performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL roughly five years old,
> code-wise.
This I dispute. A lot of the core functionality has a very traceable
lineage back to original Postgres; even though some details of the code
may have been revised pretty heavily, the algorithms and design
decisions remain. This has good points and bad points ;-) ... but
it's absolutely not true that Postgres95 threw away the existing code
and started over. As you said yourself, it was more of a question of
sticking a new frontend (ie, parser) on the existing database engine.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-04 21:45:42 | Re: names in WHERE and HAVING |
Previous Message | Sandeep Joshi | 2000-12-04 20:50:59 | bug |