> Well, that is hardly surprising. What exactly is your point?
>
> If you want to write portable software, you usually stay with generally
> available, standardized features or API's, be it "database independent",
> "platform independent", you name it. You certainly don't go for
> user-defined types. I really think all the nice features and
> capabilities of PostgreSQL are great, but I would never, ever start
> using any of them extensively in a project that might have to run on
> another database. Ever heard of vendor lock-in and "embrace and expand"?
Bah! Ever heard of crappy software because of database independence? I
have yet to see a good application that supports "database independence".
Joshua D. Drake
>
>>
>> Whenever I see that a project has been "ported" to PostgreSQL I can
>> usually be sure that it is not a project that was designed to take
>> advantage of the features and capabilities that PG offers.
>>
>> But I suspect that porting something that uses all the features of mySql
>> to PostgreSQL will be far easier than porting something that uses all
>> the features of PostgreSQL over to mySql (if it is possible at all).
>
> You're certainly right here (I did this before), that's why a lot of
> projects can support PostgreSQL when they started off with mySql. You
> can bet that isn't the case with projects that started off with Oracle
> (care to rewrite a few hundred triggers, packages and statements?).
>
> Bye
> Tim
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/