Chris wrote:
> At the moment I don't understand what the issues are. I think you're
> saying that this breaks something unimportant and it can be fixed by
> implementing it yourself some other way. I'd just be happy right now if
> I could get it working.
I think that if it is criticle for you to use postgres with turbine and
not use mysql and you really dont want to worry about the large object
issues then it is probably worth looking at implementing your own
"visitor table" and TurbineUserPeer functionality. This was the case
for me. The application that I am working on required that the database
have some of the functionality that postgres provides so I wrote my own
"Visitor" type of table and my own "Peer" classes.
If you are not looking to spend time exploring the flexibility/power
that turbine offers for you to implement solutions that are taylored
specifically to your situation then maybe mysql would be a better fit.
I think that you should probabaly decide if your project requires
postgres functionality. If not then why not just use mysql? It seems
to be used by a lot more developers on this list than postgres.
Just my random thoughts as a postgres/turbine user.
John
--
********************************
** John Thorhauer
** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
