On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> So, what's the deal, here...is the goal the Big Time or not?
If it means adopting one vendors concept of what the world should look
like...not.
I *hate* the way Oracle sets up tablespaces ... where i have to pre-guess
the size of my data and allocate space accordingly...what if my table
never does reach that critical mass? I've just wasted X meg of space ...
I hate the way that Oracle starts up something like 4 processes for every
database, when the server is started...
I think the route we've taken since day one, and hope that we continue
along it...we've created "hacks" along the way to appease users of the
different vendors for SQL relateed issues, but our underlying structure
has stayed, I think, pretty unique...
We haven't been designing a FreeOracle...we've been working on and
designing a Free, full featured RDBMS that follows the specifications laid
down ... with our own PostgreSQLism's thrown in here and there ...
If that happens to follow what one vendor happens to have done as far as
their implementation, great...but there has been no conscious effort to do
so that I'm aware of...
Just look at the whole OUTER JOIN issue ... *shrug*
I *like* the fact that we come up with original ideas/solutions to
problems, that make use of *existing* technologies ...
I liked the thread about moving indexes and tables to seperate file
systems, and hope we can implement something that will make it something
that does't require 'ln's, but I definitely don't like Oracle's way of
doing things ...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
