Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Lukas Smith
Тема Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Дата
Msg-id 446ED509.8050908@pooteeweet.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?  ("Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>)
Ответы Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?  ("Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42@gmail.com>)
Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I really think that PostgreSQL could benefit from a packaged solution 
that incorporates a lot of the contrib stuff (tsearch2, maybe even some 
replication setups ..). I really like the approach that PostgreSQL is a 
clean yet highly extensible base from which other people can build their 
specific tools.

However the fact of the matter is that MySQL provides a good enough, yet 
very easy to setup and do semi advanced things (like full text, 
replication etc). My key point here is _good enough_. This means there 
is obviously still an opportunity to give them something _better_, as 
long as it does not get in their way of being easy to setup.

The improvements to the installer are great, but there simply needs to 
be a packaged solution that adds more of the things people are very 
likely to use. From my understanding Bizgres goes in that direction? I 
just think that whatever highly packaged solution PostgreSQL picks, this 
should be the download that is pushed at conferences, in articles and 
books. People with a clue will still know where they can get the clean base.

regards,
Lukas


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Martijn van Oosterhout
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Следующее
От: Martijn van Oosterhout
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?