Re: Re[3]: [PHP-DB] Re: MySql or postgre? From: Doug Semig (dougslist <email protected>)
Date: 11/30/00

Things are rapidly deteriorating in this thread. I wasn't going to post in
this thread since I am quite the PostgreSQL fanatic and use MySQL only when
I must. But this mudslinging has grown tiresome.

Alexey has a confrontational writing style...many folks read what he says
and are angered mostly by the way he says it instead of what he is saying.
For the most part, what he says is valid, though.

While I'd love to have a forum for discussing the relative merits of each
product, the PHP-DB mailing list is probably not the right place.

My primary interest in this mailing list is mostly the interesting SQL
problems that crop up from time to time. And the database design problems
(it fascinates me how many poorly designed databases are in use!). While
these are also only loosely related to PHP-DB, at least working on these
problems is productive. Endlessly arguing about the choice of backends is
unproductive.

Please end this thread.

Doug

At 12:12 PM 11/30/00 +0300, Alexey Borzov wrote:
>Greetings, Paul!
>
>At 30.11.2000, 11:30, you wrote:
>>>::shrug::
>>>Transactions are a vital part of RDBMS. If its developers fail to
>>>understand this (or fail to implement them) - then...
>
>PD> You're arguing both sides of the question. Here you claim that the MySQL
>PD> developers fail to understand the importance of adding transaction
support,
>PD> they are incompetent. Previously you argued that because they added
>PD> transaction support, they are incompetent just because they didn't do all
>PD> the work themselves.
>
>PD> In any case, I doubt that the developers have ever claimed that
transactions
>PD> are *not* important, just that in their view other things (like speed)
are
>PD> more important for the applications they needed. The addition of
transaction
>PD> support happened because they were able to build on the work of
others. You
>PD> characterize that as incompetence. I'd say it makes a lot of sense to
use
>PD> that approach, rather than reinventing the wheel.
> There is only one side of the question:
>_If_ MySQL is a standards-compliant RDBMS then transactions are a vital part
>of it (read the SQL standard) and should be implemented in the core
>engine (as my quite limited programming experience tells me), not as
>"second party addons". If it is not - then be _honest_ about it,
>drop that annoying 'SQL' part, rename it to something like
>My-Flat-File-DB-with-SQL-like-interface. And stop comparing it with
>_real_ RDBMS's (be it Interbase, Postgres or Oracle).
> The problem is that most of MySQL's users are not knowledgeable enough to
>understand its limits, and MySQL's developers and advocates are
>sometimes reluctant to admit them... They only talk 'speed'...
>
>PD> I take it you never use any software you didn't write yourself, because
>PD> that would mean you weren't competent to write it?
> Please enlighten me, what leads you to such a conclusion?
>--
>Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW 

-- 
PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-db-unsubscribe <email protected>
For additional commands, e-mail: php-db-help <email protected>
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin <email protected>