Thread: postgre linkage with non-postgre db
Hello, Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from table1, where table1 is from mysql db. Thanks.
> Hello, > > Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? > For example, can i link mysql db over odbc > connection to postgre > database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG > like select * from > table1, where table1 is from mysql db. > > Thanks. > isn't this the job of the application? i use php's adodb's db abstraction layer and this kind of think s/b trivial. you need the connection information for both databases, of course. you just make a call to a db and pass all the connection information. of course, the syntax of the call and the connection information will be different (some could be the same, like password, but you know what i mean). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
> Hello, > > Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? > For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre > database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from > table1, where table1 is from mysql db. > > Thanks. I think that this thread on the mailing list might be of some help. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-06/msg01207.php Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote: > Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item1.1 > For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre > database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from > table1, where table1 is from mysql db. If you have Perl installed then you can do this with dbi-link or by writing your own PL/PerlU function that uses DBI. You could create a view to hide the function call, although a limitation of doing so is that WHERE restrictions would be applied after fetching the entire result set, which would be inefficient if you want only a few rows from a large table. http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dbi-link/ -- Michael Fuhr
On 7/12/06 12:39 PM, "Petronenko D.S." <petronenko@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? > For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre > database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from > table1, where table1 is from mysql db. See DBI-Link: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dbi-link/ Sean
Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote:
>> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
> The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre.
It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or
"post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something".
I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably,
the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
It seems far too late to change now, though.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:42:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote: > >> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? > > > The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre. > > It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or > "post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something". The FAQ link I included gives the correct pronunciation and has an MP3 of somebody saying it; I suppose I could have quoted the FAQ item in addition to posting the link. > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably, > the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to > plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made. > It seems far too late to change now, though. Too bad :-( -- Michael Fuhr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably, > the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to > plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made. > It seems far too late to change now, though. Not at all. For a start, the project can make it clear that "Postgres" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "PostgreSQL", and switch from encouraging Postgres instead of PostgreSQL, while keeping the ugly one around as a perpetual synonym. The fact that it is still causing problems ten years later indicates that this is not a problem that is going away easily. Practically everyone already calls it Postgres anyway, even among those of us who can pronounce it correctly. :) Why not bite the bullet at the ten-year mark and change to the correct name? Otherwise, Tom may post an email in 2016 about how the 1996 decision was still the single worst mistake the project has ever made in the last 20 years... - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607130200 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEtecHvJuQZxSWSsgRAqLPAKC3JrDFG5hikZg12QCuRdMnuxQChACg1AOT HDqgKNa5GA0gPo45YUBtlcg= =x7DT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: The name of the game (was Re: postgre linkage with non-postgre db)
From
"Andrej Ricnik-Bay"
Date:
On 7/13/06, Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> wrote: > > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this > > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference > Too bad :-( Probably stems from the common misconception that SQL should be pronounced as See-quell, hence postgreh-See-Quell, or postgreh if you don't feel like saying see-quell... :} Cheers, Andrej
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote: >>> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db? > >> The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre. > > It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or > "post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something". > > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably, > the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to > plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made. > It seems far too late to change now, though. Since alot of ppl tend to be using Postgres, I kinda see PostgreSQL as the 'formal, written word' while Postgres is the 'informal, spoken word' ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> with PostgreSQL:
>
> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>
> 1. Long domain name
It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
> 3. Difficult to say
> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
> co0-founder
>
> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>
> 1. The press knows us as that
> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
modified.
>
> Problems with Postgres:
>
> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>
There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
say "works with postgres and postgresql"
> Pros for Postgres:
>
> 1. Short domain name
2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.
> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
> 3. Easier to say
> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>
Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
transfer those domain names to the project.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> >> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> >> with PostgreSQL:
> >>
> >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> >> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
> >>
> >> 1. Long domain name
> >
> > It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
> longer is relevant.
>
let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)
the length of the world <> the difficulty in pronouncing the word. You've
listed it being difficult to say in #3 (and you'll note I didn't argue with
you), so I don't see that as valid justification for #1.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> > >> Cons for PostgreSQL: A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)
--- Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL: > > A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-) wow, i never knew there was so much name tension built up. ;-) i could see how it would be a pain to explain it over the phone, though. "like 'postgres" with a 'ql' on the end. get it? it ends in SQL." i wonder if someone would pick up on it if explained like above. i do remember jacking the name up but good when i firt started, but it didn't take long to get it straight and then it was a non issue. i guess i'm one of the few folks who natively thinks of it as postresql - i rarely use postgres. if ever. i'll use pgsql before postgres. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
> "like 'postgres" with a 'ql' on the end. get it? it > ends in SQL." > > i wonder if someone would pick up on it if explained > like above. Yes. In my case, I learned of PostgreSQL after learning of its long distant realitive - Ingres. Where Ingres' base name with used to to produce <In|Post>gres. And then came Postgres95. And then came PostgreSQL. I suppose that if one understands the history that led to "PostgreSQL" then it becomes reasonable to pronounce it as Post-gres-QL. http://www.postgresql.org/about/history Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Hi, On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 14:10 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Since alot of ppl tend to be using Postgres, I kinda see PostgreSQL as > the 'formal, written word' while Postgres is the 'informal, spoken > word' ... That's exactly what I also think about this subject. Personally I don't find this practical to change the name after 10 years or so. As Tom wrote, many of the people at the conference mispronounced PostgreSQL (SQL as the SQL Server of M$). Recalling the reason for replacing "95" instead of "SQL", the reason did not change (SQL compilance) and if we drop it again,people might say "Oh, did you drop SQL compilance?" And another thing: "I think" we have much work to do instead of suggesting name changes and spending our valuable times on this... 0.02 cents. Regards, -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: >> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing >>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems >>> with PostgreSQL: >>> >>> Cons for PostgreSQL: >>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point) >>> >>> 1. Long domain name >> >> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring > > Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view. > > Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit? > ME: WWW.postgresql.org > Customer: What? > Me: www.postgres --- ql.org > Customer: Why the ql? > > And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is > difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being longer > is relevant. Just as an aside ... http://www.postgres.org will work, and gets them to the proper site too ... where we've been able to, we've made sure that both could be used ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> >>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is >>> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being >>> longer is relevant. >>> >> >> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-) > > Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me? > > Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well :). > Guess how many times I get to say: > > My email address is jd@commandprompt.com, you know like a command prompt on > your computer? I think your domainname is cool myself ... *shrug* How much more "computerese" can you get? :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Richard Broersma Jr wrote: > > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL: > > A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-) I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-) > > I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. Even better. Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. How about Postgrezzque'el ? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >>> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. >> How about Postgrezzque'el ? > > We gotta be cooler, more hip hop: > > Postshizzle That almost made the disaster that has become my trip back to Austin from OSCon worthwhile. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461