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 fo
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
>
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
> in platform support compared to mysql.
>
> 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 doe
At 10:28 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
>> >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
>> >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
>>
>> Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You
"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 Li
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
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
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > limited
> > in platform support compared to mysql.
And:
> > 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 platf
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'
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 pai
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 o
At 11:22 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Lincoln Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is there a pipe method where I can continuously print to/read from?
>
>Not at the moment, but that's obviously going to be a necessary feature
>if we want to make the existing flavor of large objects obsolet
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
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> "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 integrit
On Tue, 30 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 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/dev
> 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 mon
> 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.
> 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 referenc
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
Hello,
I've worked with 6.5.3 and few other older versions. I've never
had this happen before. Can some one give some explaination?
Script started on Tue May 30 01:11:29 2000
bash-2.03$ psql -d sprawlsr -c "vacuum"
NOTICE: Skipping "pg_type" --- only table owner can VACUUM it
NOTICE: Sk
24 matches
Mail list logo
