Обсуждение: RE: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL ?

> > The bottom line is that the marketing of PostgreSQL is not even close to
> > that of MySQL.  Thank god the code, community and support doesn't follow
> > suit!
>
> I think MySQL got a big start by migrating mSQL users years ago and
> having a compatibility module for mSQL.
>
    [Matthew]  Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
compatibility module?  An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that would add
many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.  I know this
couldn't cover everything, but it could probably make it much easier to port
an app written against mysql to postgre.  I have seen several posts on these
lists about someone attempting to port some app to postgre, and now knowing
how to find the postgre equivelant of some mysql function.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Matthew wrote:

> > I think MySQL got a big start by migrating mSQL users years ago and
> > having a compatibility module for mSQL.
> >
>     [Matthew]  Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
> compatibility module?  An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that would add
> many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.  I know this
> couldn't cover everything, but it could probably make it much easier to port
> an app written against mysql to postgre.  I have seen several posts on these
> lists about someone attempting to port some app to postgre, and now knowing
> how to find the postgre equivelant of some mysql function.

I think it would be wasted effort.  I would rather the developers focus on
PostgreSQL, not MySQL, or Access, or whatever.  We have things like DBI &
ODBC (not to mention SQL, which is fairly standard) to make data access
generic.  I think trying to do this at a lower-level is a waste of time.

Just my $.02, of course.

                                     http://www.chapelperilous.net/~bmccoy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean you didn't *know* she was off making lots of little phone companies?

"Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy@chapelperilous.net> writes:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Matthew wrote:
>> [Matthew]  Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
>> compatibility module?  An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that
>> would add many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.

> I think it would be wasted effort.  I would rather the developers focus on
> PostgreSQL, not MySQL, or Access, or whatever.

I agree that the key developers shouldn't spend much time on such a
thing, but on the other hand this isn't a project that requires a key
developer to get done.  If Matthew or someone else feels like spending
time on it, I wouldn't object...

            regards, tom lane

Matthew writes:

>     [Matthew]  Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
> compatibility module?  An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that would add
> many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.  I know this
> couldn't cover everything, but it could probably make it much easier to port
> an app written against mysql to postgre.  I have seen several posts on these
> lists about someone attempting to port some app to postgre, and now knowing
> how to find the postgre equivelant of some mysql function.

Adding the functions that MySQL has that PostgreSQL doesn't is the least
of your problems.  The real problem with porting applications will be that
MySQL fosters a completely different approach to data modelling combined
with the consequential use of non-standard "SQL" constructs.  The same
could probably be said for the inverse operation, and we've all heard the
arguments for and against so I won't repeat them, but the fact is that a
transparent porting layer is mostly impossible.

I've tried once to implement the MySQL C API on top of libpq and I gave up
in despair.  Just in case someone wanted to try that, too.

--
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

Easy to find documentation about compatibility will be nice for a start. Maybe a table with PostgreSQL syntax, MySQL
etc.syntax and standard SQL-92. 

At 02:23 11.12.2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>"Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy@chapelperilous.net> writes:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Matthew wrote:
>>> [Matthew]  Would it make sense for postgre to have a mysql
>>> compatibility module?  An add on package (perhaps in contrib) that
>>> would add many of the functions that mysql has that postgre does not.
>
>> I think it would be wasted effort.  I would rather the developers focus on
>> PostgreSQL, not MySQL, or Access, or whatever.
>
>I agree that the key developers shouldn't spend much time on such a
>thing, but on the other hand this isn't a project that requires a key
>developer to get done.  If Matthew or someone else feels like spending
>time on it, I wouldn't object...
>
>                        regards, tom lane