archives again

[Collins Richey]

On 11/18/05, Net Llama! <netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:
> On 11/18/2005 08:40 PM, Collins Richey wrote:
> > I know how to access the list archives, but ... is there a searchable
> > format of the archives or some sort of a tool I can use to do this?
> > Sounds like a pretty round wheel, but I haven't a clue.
>
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/site_search.html
>
> >
> > What brought this up was one of those PostgreSQL vs MySQL questions on
> > my local list. The discussion started out from this premise: "Since
> > PostgreSQL seems not to be as actively maintained on most distros as
> > MySQ, and since MySQL now has Triggers and Stored Procedures and
>
> Where did you come up with this idea?  I'm not aware of any modern,
> complete distro that isn't 'actively' maintaining postgresql if they're
> shipping it to begin with.
>

I didn't come up with this idea; I'm merely the relay. Surprisingly
enough, the premise cited above came from an individual who has a
great deal of knowledge and usually answers the thornier questions on
the list. This came up in an interchange where we are attempting to
schedule some discussion sessions/study groups outside the regualar
monthly Linux meeting. Among the many topics proposed was PHP and
MySQL (the basis for the lug website), and I suggested that we study
Postgres as well. Back came the attitude - who needs Postgres when you
have MySQL ...

The one observation I have that makes this gentleman's comment
slightly believable came up with CentOS4/RHEL4 where they shipped with
a default of selinux enabled but Postgres would not start with the
default setting. There soon followed a fix/workaround, but it makes me
think that Red Hat didn't care quite as much about testing Postgres as
they do about other products. That's a one off.situation.

More to the point, the individual in question is probably
distorting/confusing the fact that there is a lot more list traffic,
general interest, etc. about MySQL than Postgres, even though those
who really understand database technology (certainly not I) consider
MySQL to be more of a toy. Postgres had all of the features that MySQL
is now touting when MySQL was still wearing a training bra.

Given what little I understand about both products, I've never been
able to figure out why MySQL became so insanely propular. I just read
an article on LinuxToday where a company called EnterpriseDB has
developed an interface (commercial not FOSS) that allows Postgres to
run pretty much unadulterated Oracle code, and they're certainly not
doing that for MySQL..

This is now quite <OT> to the original content of the post: how to
search the archives.

--
Collins Richey
      Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write
      the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
      smart enough to debug it.
             -Brian Kernighan