Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?