Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | CSN |
---|---|
Subject | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20051006193539.92738.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>) |
Responses |
Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?
|
List | pgsql-general |
--- Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > > > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote: > > >> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there > any new > > >> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in > > >> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG > just > > >> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO). > > >> > > >> MySQL 5.0 new features > > >> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-5-0-nutshell.html > > > > > Well "IF" they are being completely honest, we > don't have XA > > > and we don't have an "instance manager" but of > course who really needs > > > one? > > > > We don't have XA built into the backend, but if > I've been following the > > jdbc list accurately, there's fairly complete XA > support for the jdbc > > driver, which should be available in the 8.1 > release. > > > > More generally, it's worth making the point that a > lot of MySQL's "brand > > new in 5.0" features have been in Postgres for a > *long* time, and are > > therefore likely to be both more stable and > better-performing than > > MySQL's first cut at them. > > > > (BTW, it sure seems like MySQL 5.0 has been a > heckuva long time in > > getting to release status. Has anyone here been > following that > > process? Why's it been so painful?) > > I've been beta testing 5.0.xx releases and reporting > bugs. They're > pretty fast at fixing individual bugs. > > Not sure why it's taken so long, really. Maybe they > were trying to do > too much at once in one release? > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE > bugs simply aren't > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, > while mysql understands > fk references made at a table level, it simply > ignores, without error, > warning, or notice, fk references made in a column. > arg... Very > frustrating. If they just didn't support that > syntax it would be much > less bothersome, since I'd try it, get an error, and > try the other > syntax. Instead, I spent an afternoon trying to > figure out why it > wasn't doing ANYTHING when I declared an FK > reference at column level. > > Things like that are, sadly, kinda rampant in MySQL. > What's the difference between a fk at the table level vs. column level? The only fk's I've used are one column referencing another. CSN ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
pgsql-general by date: