At 01:36 PM 26-05-2000 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Barry Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this also mean that if you are using large objects that you really
won't be able to store large numbers of large objects in a database?
(If I am correct, each large object creates two files, one for the
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
This has "fire" written all over it
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
This has "fire" written all over it
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
or supprto for views. But beyond that, you
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for
Lincoln Yeoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's never been much enthusiasm among the core developers for large
objects at all --- we see them as a poor substitute for allowing large
values directly. (The "TOAST" work scheduled for 7.1 will finally
resolve that issue, I hope.) So no one's
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
Brett W. McCoy
Yes. How much money has to be paid
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But
Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on
Win9x:
"...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..."
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
"...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..."
The documentation references using
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
the backend.
Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
the backend.
Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use
16 matches
Mail list logo
