Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Gurjeet Singh wrote: As I read it, he is supportive of the community process that PG follows; I am not so sure he promotes Postgres though :) I based my comments on discussions I have had with him, not based on his blog. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
As I read it, he is supportive of the community process that PG follows; I am not so sure he promotes Postgres though :) On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Long wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD I quit using MySQL years ago when the default table type did not have transactions and subqueries were not existent. The features I was looking for were already in PostgreSQL for several versions. I am surprised to see such an honest post regarding MySQL. Monty is quite supportive of Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Jason Long wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD I quit using MySQL years ago when the default table type did not have transactions and subqueries were not existent. The features I was looking for were already in PostgreSQL for several versions. I am surprised to see such an honest post regarding MySQL. Monty is quite supportive of Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) -- GJ
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) I'd rather do the paritioning by hand and use slony and know it works than rely on the code that's doing all that in mysql. If your server crashes while updating a partitioned table, you could lose all the data in it. Replication can mysteriously just quit working with no errors or warning. Make your pick, half assed code that sometimes works, or postgresql. :) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:05 +, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Depends on your needs, a broken step is worse than a manual one. Joshua D. Drake Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) -- GJ -- PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
2008/12/1 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'd rather do the paritioning by hand and use slony and know it works than rely on the code that's doing all that in mysql. If your server crashes while updating a partitioned table, you could lose all the data in it. Replication can mysteriously just quit working with no errors or warning. Make your pick, half assed code that sometimes works, or postgresql. :) FYI, my reference up there was to MySQL doing those things (losing data and not replicating) not pgsql... -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 08:05:48PM +, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. That will provide excellent comfort to the users. HaplessUser: Your replication crashed and took all of my slaves with it, and then my primary database crashed and I had an outage! You cost me $BIGNUM dollars in downtime! MySQLSupport: Well, at least replication is built in! HaplessUser: But it's broken! You broke my database! I lost data! This is buggy! Why am I paying you? MySQLSupport: Built in! Built in! Built in! LALALALA. Yep. Comforting, that. A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) Actually, he has a couple of them: pgsql-general@postgresql.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . :) -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Geoffrey wrote: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html All interesting, but especially the part about half-way down under the heading So what went wrong with MySQL 5.1 ? - must-read for anyone involved in selecting a database. well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) Actually, he has a couple of them: pgsql-general@postgresql.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . :) I'm very happy and proud to use Postgresql as the developers working on Postgresql deliver a quality product, not claim its quality. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD I quit using MySQL years ago when the default table type did not have transactions and subqueries were not existent. The features I was looking for were already in PostgreSQL for several versions. I am surprised to see such an honest post regarding MySQL. Sun Picks Up MySQL For $1 Billion http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/16/sun-picks-up-mysql-for-1-billion-open-source-is-a-legitimate-business-model/ to bad for them they did not go with PostgreSQL. :)
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jason Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD I quit using MySQL years ago when the default table type did not have transactions and subqueries were not existent. The features I was looking for were already in PostgreSQL for several versions. I am surprised to see such an honest post regarding MySQL. Sun Picks Up MySQL For $1 Billion to bad for them they did not go with PostgreSQL. :) It's free. The pgsql community, however, is priceless. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
Scott Marlowe wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jason Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who just saved a copy of that post for reference in case it gets forcibly removed... Recently I was thinking about whether I had enough material to warrant a 2008 update to Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL; who would have guessed that Monty would do most of the research I was considering for me? -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD I quit using MySQL years ago when the default table type did not have transactions and subqueries were not existent. The features I was looking for were already in PostgreSQL for several versions. I am surprised to see such an honest post regarding MySQL. Sun Picks Up MySQL For $1 Billion to bad for them they did not go with PostgreSQL. :) It's free. The pgsql community, however, is priceless. No doubt. The pgsql community rocks. In fact the support on this mailing list is top notch and free. :) Thank you a million times over to anyone that has give me advice here. I have never gotten bad advice from this list.
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: well, at least they have replication and partitioning built in. How reliable it is, is completely another story - but still, they are a step ahead in that regard. Now I know why Tom Lane doesn't have a blog :) Actually, he has a couple of them: pgsql-general@postgresql.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] . which reminds me, of my favourite recent quote: Think I'll go fix this while I'm watching the football game ... -- GJ
Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: Oops, we did it again
=?UTF-8?Q?Grzegorz_Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: which reminds me, of my favourite recent quote: Think I'll go fix this while I'm watching the football game ... Well, the Steelers were up 23-10 at that point, so the game no longer demanded too much attention ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
