Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:

> Whatever. You're just dick-waving....
> Except apparently you have no life, oh well, not my problem....
> Again, you're dick-waving and further discussion is not useful....
> Which is it? The idiot behind door number one or the pendantic boor
> behind door number two?

Uh, yeah. If ad hominem attacks win arguments, I guess you win.
I'll let others decide whether the above arguments are a good reason
to keep table inheritance in postgres.

>
> >>We don't need the binary "integer" type, either. We could just use
> >>"number". Yes, operations on "number" are a bit slower and they often
> >>take more space, but ...
> >>
> >>Shall we take a vote :)
> >
> > If you like. I vote we keep the integer type. Any other questions?
>
> Sure ... why the inconsistency without explanation?

Personally I don't find it inconsistent that I want to remove something
that's broken and of dubious utility but keep something that works and
is demonstrably useful. It must be something to do with my dick, I
suppose. But I'll admit, your arguments are beyond me. I surrender.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC