On Tuesday 11 November 2003 06:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:17:23PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that
> > >we don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way?
> >
> > I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective
> > and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts.
>
> I think the point is that it's not important if it is true or not, facts
> or not; we shouldn't be showing someone else's problems to whoever wants
> to know about Postgres.
If they want to know about postgresql, then thats fine, but the reality is
that people will ask you why they should choose postgresql over mysql, and
one reason you might give is that postgresql is acid complient. as soon as
you say that, people will bust out with "mysql is acid complient, you guys
are just fudsters". You need something like the gotchas page to be able to
back that up...
Maybe we need to rephrase the information from the gotchas page? "One feature
of postgresql is that when you insert a null value on a column that has a
default, it inserts the null value, not the default column value"
i think a lot of people would think we have gone bonkers...
Honestly I would like to see gotchas type pages created for every database; if
someone asks me why they should choose postgresql i have that covered, but if
someone asks me why they might want to migrate from $ql server to postgresql,
that would be a lot tougher since i don't have to regulary deal with it. As
long as the information on these pages is well researched, correct,
documented, and responsive to being changed, I don't think it's uncalled for.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
