Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1

2010-03-09 Thread Ben Chobot
All links to download postgres are carefully hidden under http://www.postgresql.org/download/ Whether or not there is a link there to the particular platform and package format you want depends upon which one you're looking for. But a few minutes of looking should let you determine the answer t

[GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1

2010-03-09 Thread AI Rumman
Please tell me the link to download Postgresql 8.1

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Daniel Schuchardt
Ok, thats fine for us. Most of our customers run Debian in 64Bit mode with Postgres 81 64 Bit, but some won't use a *nix. Thanks. Am 13.01.2010 18:49, schrieb Joshua D. Drake: we plan to upgrade to 8.4 the next time but currently everything is build with 8.1. thanks for your awnsers, so

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> we plan to upgrade to 8.4 the next time but currently everything is > build with 8.1. thanks for your awnsers, so we wont try it. > but i think we will wait till 8.5 because of the 64 bit problem. > > we did not upgrade because 81 has autocast and later version doesn't, > so we need to check a

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread A. Kretschmer
In response to Daniel Schuchardt : > we plan to upgrade to 8.4 the next time but currently everything is build with > 8.1. thanks for your awnsers, so we wont try it. > but i think we will wait till 8.5 because of the 64 bit problem. I'm not expect that 8.5 contains 64 bit for windows... http://b

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Greg Smith
Daniel Schuchardt wrote: can anybody give us a hint if we can use that combination? PostgreSQL 8.1 for Windows became unsupported over two years ago due to technical issues: http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865 http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy There were

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Daniel Schuchardt
Am 13.01.2010 16:00, schrieb Craig Ringer: On 13/01/2010 6:15 PM, Daniel Schuchardt wrote: Hy, can anybody give us a hint if we can use that combination? You can use libpq on 64-bit windows to talk to an 8.1 database if you really must. I really wouldn't recommend running the 8.1 database

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
8.1 version doesn't make any sense anyway, on any platform. There's been so many improvements since, and if one wants to be conservative - go for 8.3, which has tons of improvements over 8.1, especially in area of performance. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Craig Ringer
On 13/01/2010 6:15 PM, Daniel Schuchardt wrote: Hy, can anybody give us a hint if we can use that combination? You can use libpq on 64-bit windows to talk to an 8.1 database if you really must. I really wouldn't recommend running the 8.1 database on windows. Win32 releases of Pg see big im

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
and besides, I think 8.1 is not supported on win32 anymore. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
2010/1/13 Daniel Schuchardt : > Hy, > > can anybody give us a hint if we can use that combination? > first 64bit PostgreSQL on win will be 8.5 regards Pavel > Thanks, > > Daniel. > -- > > Daniel Schuchardt > /Softwareentwicklung/ > > /http://www.prodat-sql.de/ > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general m

[GENERAL] postgresql 8.1 windows 2008 64 bit

2010-01-13 Thread Daniel Schuchardt
Hy, can anybody give us a hint if we can use that combination? Thanks, Daniel. -- Daniel Schuchardt /Softwareentwicklung/ /http://www.prodat-sql.de/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fail

2007-01-29 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "Michael" == Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> Isn't that the situation here? The PL/Perl function body is a Michael> string encoded in the database's encoding, which in this case is Michael> UTF-8. If that's always the case, then the embedded Perl interpreter should be sta

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fail

2007-01-29 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:34:47PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you can't upgrade to 8.2 then you might be able to work around > > the problem by creating the function as plperlu and adding 'use utf8;'. > > As fas as i know 'use utf8;' normally just tells Perl that the source code > is w

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fail

2007-01-29 Thread Matthias . Pitzl
> In an 8.1.6 UTF-8 database this example returns false; in 8.2.1 it > returns true. See the following commit message and the related bug > report regarding PL/Perl and UTF-8: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-10/msg00277.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fails with UTF8

2007-01-29 Thread Philippe Lang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you can't upgrade to 8.2 then you might be able to work around the > problem by creating the function as plperlu and adding 'use utf8;'. After upgrading to 8.2.1, everything runs just fine. Thanks a lot for your help, Regards, Philippe Lang --

Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fails with UTF8

2007-01-27 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +0100, Philippe Lang wrote: > I've got plperl code that works just fine when the database is > encoded using LATIN1, but fails as soon as I switch to UTF8. > > I've been testing PG 8.1.4 under Linux, and PG 8.1.6 under FreeBSD, > both behave exactly the save. [..

[GENERAL] Postgresql 8.1: plperl code works with LATIN1, fails with UTF8

2007-01-26 Thread Philippe Lang
Hi, I've got plperl code that works just fine when the database is encoded using LATIN1, but fails as soon as I switch to UTF8. I've been testing PG 8.1.4 under Linux, and PG 8.1.6 under FreeBSD, both behave exactly the save. I'm sorry I'm not able to strip down the code, and show you a small

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1: createdb: xflush error ?

2007-01-23 Thread Steven De Vriendt
Hi, I'm trying to make a new database, yet when I try to do this I get the following error: ERROR: xlog flush request 0/827520 is not satisfied --- flushed only to 0/80D7B8 CONTEXT: writing block 5 of relation 1663/16893/1259 Can someone give me a clue of what it means ? Regards, Steven

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 - SSL:Required

2006-10-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
> Hi, > I am using the binary install for postgresql 8.1 Win32 on Windows > XP. I know how to intstall SSL if I was installing from source, -- > with-openssl, but I am installing onto Windows XP for the first > time, so my question is: > > 1. How do I install the SSL module via the install wizard?

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 - SSL:Required

2006-10-02 Thread Andrew
Hi,I am using the binary install for postgresql 8.1 Win32 on Windows XP. I know how to intstall SSL if I was installing from source, --with-openssl, but I am installing onto Windows XP for the first time, so my question is: 1. How do I install the SSL module via the install wizard?Blessings Andrew

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache

2006-06-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most the time I've seen this, php and apache have been compiling against different versions of the same or similar libs. Last time, apache was hitting the netscape ldap libs, php was hitting the ones for openldap. Look for that kind of thing. Also, try compiling php with ONLY the postgresql ext

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache

2006-06-05 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 14:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am fighting with FreeBSD 5.4, Apache 1.3.36, php 5.1.4 and PostgreSQL > 8.1.4 two days already. The PGSQL extention of php crashes everything. > Trying to go back to PostgreSQL 8.0.8 to see if the problem comes from > there. > > Please,

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55/1.3.34

2006-06-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am fighting with FreeBSD 5.4, Apache 1.3.36, php 5.1.4 and PostgreSQL 8.1.4 two days already. The PGSQL extention of php crashes everything. Trying to go back to PostgreSQL 8.0.8 to see if the problem comes from there. Please, let me know if your case is similar. Iv. -

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55/1.3.34 PROBLEM!! PLEASE HELP

2006-04-27 Thread codeWarrior
This is not a postgreSQL issue -- you are having problems with your PHP configuration... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Help! I was trying to make an installation of PHP 5.1.2 + Apache > 2.0.55 + PostgreSQL 8.1 on Windows 2003 Server, and I'm stuck. I > got PHP to

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55/1.3.34 PROBLEM!! PLEASE HELP

2006-04-27 Thread krzysieq
Help! I was trying to make an installation of PHP 5.1.2 + Apache 2.0.55 + PostgreSQL 8.1 on Windows 2003 Server, and I'm stuck. I got PHP to work with Apache quite smoothly, so did I marry PHP with PostgreSQL - scripts connecting to the database work fine from windows command line, except that

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55/1.3.34 PROBLEM!! PLEASE HELP

2006-04-26 Thread chris smith
On 4/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Help! I was trying to make an installation of PHP 5.1.2 + Apache > 2.0.55 + PostgreSQL 8.1 on Windows 2003 Server, and I'm stuck. I > got PHP to work with Apache quite smoothly, so did I marry PHP with > PostgreSQL - scripts connecting to t

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 + PHP5.1.x/4.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55/1.3.34 PROBLEM!! PLEASE HELP

2006-04-26 Thread belfegor666
Help! I was trying to make an installation of PHP 5.1.2 + Apache 2.0.55 + PostgreSQL 8.1 on Windows 2003 Server, and I'm stuck. I got PHP to work with Apache quite smoothly, so did I marry PHP with PostgreSQL - scripts connecting to the database work fine from windows command line, except that the

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 v. Oracle 10g xe

2006-03-24 Thread Ian Harding
> I discovered in the process of attempting to install Oracle 10g express > edition that it is an extraordinary memory hog. One might have thought > that one might have something that might have lower system requirements > than the full version. However, this is not the case. > > The installation

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 v. Oracle 10g xe

2006-03-23 Thread Oisin Glynn
Chris Travers wrote: Recently I have been attempting to install Compiere. After spending a lot of time attempting to get it to work, I have given up installing it on PostgreSQL. I did however, get a little experience installing JDBC and PL/Java in the mean time. I discovered in the process

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 v. Oracle 10g xe

2006-03-23 Thread Chris Travers
Recently I have been attempting to install Compiere. After spending a lot of time attempting to get it to work, I have given up installing it on PostgreSQL. I did however, get a little experience installing JDBC and PL/Java in the mean time. I discovered in the process of attempting to insta

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 without readline and zlib

2006-02-01 Thread Richard Huxton
gfnobrega wrote: Hi, list! Exist some negative performance impact in compiling postgresql without libs readline and zlib? I was compiling in a HP PA-RISC with HP AnsiC compiler. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/install-procedure.html --without-readline Prevents use of the Readl

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 without readline and zlib

2006-02-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
gfnobrega wrote: > Hi, list! > > > > Exist some negative performance impact in compiling postgresql without libs > readline and zlib? I was compiling in a HP PA-RISC with HP AnsiC compiler. No performance impact in having or not having these features. -- Bruce Momjian

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 without readline and zlib

2006-02-01 Thread gfnobrega
Hi, list!   Exist some negative performance impact in compiling postgresql without libs readline and zlib? I was compiling in a HP PA-RISC with HP AnsiC compiler.   Thanks!   Gustavo Franklin Nóbrega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Infraestrutura e Banco de Dados Planae Tecnologia da Informação (+

Re: [GENERAL] POstgreSQL 8.1.X/Lazarus?

2006-01-02 Thread Zlatko Matić
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Zlatko Matić" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] POstgreSQL 8.1.X/Lazarus? Are you running Lazarus on win32 or Linux?(I assume win32 because you mentioned a dll) I have successfully used Zeos

Re: [GENERAL] POstgreSQL 8.1.X/Lazarus?

2005-12-29 Thread Tony Caduto
Are you running Lazarus on win32 or Linux?(I assume win32 because you mentioned a dll) I have successfully used Zeos with Delphi against a 8.1 server, I even used the libpq74.dll that ships with zeos. I guess you should make sure any versions of libpq you have are in your system32 dir. Win

[GENERAL] POstgreSQL 8.1.X/Lazarus?

2005-12-29 Thread Zlatko Matić
Hello.   Is there anybody using lazarus with new POstgreSQL 8.1.X ? I couldn't connect using Zeos, because it seems zeos work only with old versions of PostgreSQL. Also, I couldn't connect by using TPSQL, because it can't find libpg.dll installed (?)...   Regards,   Zlatko

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-30 Thread CSN
Here are some apparent problems with MySQL 5.0: - Concurrent ALTER TABLE - Replicated Session Variables and Concurrent ALTER TABLE - BIT indexing that [doesn't] actually uses a BIT! - SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE ID IN ( SELECT FOO_ID FROM BAR ) [doesn't use index] http://www.feedblog.org/2005/10/what

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 Beta 4

2005-10-24 Thread Marc G. Fournier
In order to address some issues found with the Windows port, as well as GCC4, we have released a Beta 4 of the upcoming 8.1 Release. This Beta is meant to be a quick beta, baring any problems, with our first Release Candidate happening late this same week. With this beta, Tom has also put o

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? > Access-like Query builder > C++ Vector-based GUI binding

2005-10-15 Thread Matthew Peter
This thread should continue under the proper title since it's been hi-jacked . I didn't read your entire post. If you know how to join a pk and fk it's not difficult to build an effective diagram on paper and reuse the same schema for other applications. > > I think there really is a need for a

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-15 Thread Jeffrey Melloy
On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Alex Turner wrote: > >Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and >stopping the database remotely. > > I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSH I'm just curious, but how does this work for a windows bo

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Johan Wehtje wrote: I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you would make that comment. Personlly I think you were right. Access is a good front end, at least in the sense that it is a hell of a lot better than anything the OSS community has bothered to come up with. I

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-15 Thread Johan Wehtje
I doubt you read the rest of the post otherwise I don't think you would make that comment. I think there really is a need for a rich DB client that allows Rapid development and is easy to link to an office Suite. To be useful to a business a database needs the applications built on top of it,

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-15 Thread Matthew Peter
Someone trying to stick microsoft yet another place they don't belong. --- Johan Wehtje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very much a description of the Business I am in. > > For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think > that as a rich > Database Client that permits really rapid > developme

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-15 Thread Johan Wehtje
Very much a description of the Business I am in. For all the criticism leveled at it, I still think that as a rich Database Client that permits really rapid development of Database driven applications Access is unbeatable. Pair it with a good Database server and it is the perfect combination.

quoting was: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 15:44 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner: > Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;) > > Alex > > On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle > lets you ... >

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Alex Turner
heh... anythings possible ;)  I guess we are okay for now then seeing that we are using postgresql with no dblinkg ;) AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wouldn't be so sure of that.  IT might be that in order to beconsidered to be complying with the contract you have to se

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Scott Marlowe
I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to be considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining. Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you might well be in brea

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Alex Turner
Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;) AlexOn 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets youtreat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breachyour contract then?  In this case,

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Scott Marlowe
If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets you treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breach your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and Oracle's separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature aside. On Thu, 2005-10-13 at

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Alex Turner
I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract.  Our contract with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases ;), so I'm kind of tied down by the legalese. I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, but I talked to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner: ... > > > > If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be to support > cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a HUGE pain in the ass, > and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell. > > I would switch to Oracle t

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:00:03PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote: > > > >Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting > > >and stopping the database remotely. > > > > > I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have > > OpenSSH > > I'm just curious, but how does t

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Alex Turner
>>Instance Manager:  Uniquely MySQL.  It allows things like starting and >stopping the database remotely.>>I cannot think of a reason ever to need this when we have OpenSSH I'm just curious, but how does this work for a windows box?  >>Federated Storage Engine:  Allows MySQL to access tables in

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Alex Turner
Actualy to me, it seems like postgres is a perfect partner for MS Access.  Throw out Jet, and use Pgsql.  It's infinately better than Jet, so operating in a Win98 environment seems reasonable in this scenario. I swear you could build a business just building MS Access apps on a Postgresql database

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-13 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:32, Chris Travers wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > >Strict Mode and Error handling: Not an option, but always on in > >PostgreSQL. There are still plenty of things that "fall through the > >cracks" on MySQL, like my previously mentioned problem with column level > >constr

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
Alex Turner wrote: Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1 Right And it was extended again last year as it was supposed to extend this last June, and Last June, etc. We will see if it is not extended again But if you are run

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
Scott Marlowe wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote: Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO). Instance Manager: Uni

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-12 Thread Ron Mayer
Michael Fuhr wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers. ... I hope their employers appreciate what they've got. Is there a good way of telling their employe

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-12 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:20:47AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > project. I hope their employers appreciate what they've got. Well, I can tell you that Afilias does. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-10 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > Actually, the same could be said of Samba and Apache. I'll take one Tom > Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql hackers go here) over > 1,000 MySQL hackers. > > I wonder what kind of result we would get if we compared somet

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-10 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > I'll take one Tom Lane or Jan Wieck or (all the other postgresql > hackers go here) over 1,000 MySQL hackers. Likewise. They probably don't hear it enough, so I hope they're aware that some of us have a great deal of respect for bot

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-10 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:42, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought > I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate > dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-08 Thread Matthew Terenzio
On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:04 PM, CSN wrote: AFAIK MySQL's fulltext indexing is only supported on MyIsam tables, so if you want to use it, you lose ACID, For me, the fact that to use a feature means one needs to give up ACIDity ends any debate on which DB to choose, and I'm not even a power user

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-08 Thread CSN
> On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote: > > > They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one collation per database cluster :-( > > Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-08 Thread Jan Wieck
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote: They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one collation per database cluster :-( Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used togather

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > - All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL > support > services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB. Damn, guess I need to update my resume... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consult

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 13:32 -0500, Dan Armbrust wrote: > >IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick, > >Cloudscape) None of those take- > >overs has led to a product actually surviving. > > > Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Ian Barwick
On 10/7/05, Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing > > real for them to throw at PostgreSQL. > > This just appeared on slashdot... > > MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Welty, Richard
Simon Riggs wrote: > IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick, > Cloudscape) and Oracle have previously bought DEC RDB, so both have > track record of successful competitor take-overs. None of those take- > overs has led to a product actually surviving. Informix to some d

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Philip Hallstrom
But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing real for them to throw at PostgreSQL. This just appeared on slashdot... MySQL To Be Ikea Of The Database Market http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/07/1224213&from=rss From the linked article... http://w

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Dan Armbrust
IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick, Cloudscape) None of those take- overs has led to a product actually surviving. Thats not exactly true - Cloudscape was just given to Apache, and is now opensourced under the name "Derby" http://db.apache.org/derby/

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Richard_D_Levine
In this thread, no one has mentioned their dual license, which I think of as more duplicitous than dual. Neither free as in freedom nor free as in beer, really. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:45:39 PM: > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > So, yeah, the above claim

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some > hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and > how many other support options users will have if they go under. A possibly more likely and scary

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Freitag, den 07.10.2005, 19:00 +0300 schrieb Andrus: ... > I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free > software. > > So there are the following options : > > 1. Use Firebird > 2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP > 3. Use Postgres native for XP, Post

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 07:00:27PM +0300, Andrus wrote: > "Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote: > >> > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 You can run PostgreSQL on > >> > Cygwin on Win98, I think. But ifyo

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Richard Huxton
Andrus wrote: I must support demo versions for 1 to 100 users in all Windowses using free software. So there are the following options : 1. Use Firebird 2. Use Postgres + cygwin all cases, even in XP 3. Use Postgres native for XP, Postgres+cygwin in Win 98 4. Use Postgres native for XP, Sqlite

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Andrus
"Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote: >> > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 >> > You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think. >> > But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don'

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:45:06AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote: > > > > Also, notice the "TYPE innodb" clause of the CREATE TABLE > > statement. The default table type in MySQL is MyISAM, which > > doesn't support foreign key contraints at all

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 06 October 2005 18:18, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote: > > --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access > > > tables in other > > > servers like they are here. No real direct > > > equiva

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Robert Treat
On Friday 07 October 2005 04:22, Andrus wrote: > > PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 > > You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think. > > But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't > care much about your data :) > > My goal is to allow my application demo, tr

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:31, Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote: > > Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't > > > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Andrus
"Douglas McNaught" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Andrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native >> Windows >> Postgres? > > I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98 > will nev

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Andrus
"Tony Caduto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with > >>unicode support. >>Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ? >> >> > You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Douglas McNaught
"Andrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Apache runs well in Windows 98. Why this is so difficult in native Windows > Postgres? I *think* it's because we use certain features of NTFS, which Win98 will never support. -Doug ---(end of broadcast)--- TI

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Tony Caduto
1.pgAdmin refuses to run in Windows 98, displays that it is compiled with unicode support. Where to find binary version of pgAdmin for Windows 98 ? You could try PG Lightning Admin, it should work in windows 98. I don't have access to a win98 box to really test, but it *should* work. -- To

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Andrus
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98 > You can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin on Win98, I think. > But ifyou're running your database server on win98, you obviously don't care much about your data :) My goal is to allow my application demo, trial and development versions to run in every Windows. If c

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-07 Thread Richard Huxton
Scott Marlowe wrote: It's just where they're defined. See this bug for an explanation: And a table-level foreign-key can involve more than one column of course. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9'

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Ian Barwick
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote: (...) > > > Are you aware of the MySQL Gotchas website (just google it)? Any time > > > you see MySQL being stupid about somethin

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and how many other support options users will have if they go under. Well I can say that Command Prompt will support their migration to PostgreSQL fully

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL >> support services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB. > Oh the irony Actually, AFAIR the *only* such company that's gone under was Great Bridge; and in their case i

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL support services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB. Oh the irony Command Prompt, Inc... Doing PostgreSQL since 1997. Profitable since 1997. No debt since 1997. Oh... and of course, no outsi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread > thought I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are > of a delicate dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked > them

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread CSN
I had a similar experience speaking to the MySQL folks at (the last) COMDEX. After trying to get them to explain how their licenses work, I was even more confused (and two reps even gave conflicting info). CSN > Hi everyone, > > I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thre

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Mark Cave-Ayland
Hi everyone, I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why I should use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL and was quite surpris

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't > > > getting fixed and probably won't.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote: > > --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access > > tables in other > > servers like they are here. No real direct > > equivalent in PostgreSQL, > > but dblink provides similar functio

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:26AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > Information Schema: MySQL's support of this looks fairly extensive. But PostgreSQL's is pretty good, too, last I looked. > Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and > stopping the database remotely.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:40 -0700, CSN wrote: > --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access > > tables in other > > servers like they are here. No real direct > > equivalent in PostgreSQL, > > but dblink provides similar functionality. >

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

2005-10-06 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote: > Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't > > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands > > fk references made at a table level, it simply

  1   2   >