From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2002-08-02 10:23:04 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0208021919480.442-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Could you point me to some pure relational languages ?
> Preferrably not pure academic at the same time ;)
The QUEL and PostQUEL languages used in Ingres and the old Postgres were
rather more "relational" than SQL.
> BTW, what other parts of SQL do you consider non-relational (and thus
> candidates for dropping) ?
I have nothing particular in mind right now. Also, note that merely
being non-relational does not make a language element a candidate
for dropping. If lots of other databases implement a feature, it
would be silly to destroy compatability for the sake of theory.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-08-02 10:45:25 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-08-02 10:15:40 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |