[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PAM on OpenBSD
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: PAM on OpenBSD
- From: Diana Eichert <deichert_(_at_)_wrench_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:38:56 -0600 (MDT)
I'll be nice about this, religious wars about anything probably don't
belong on this list.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Generic Player wrote:
> > > MySQL gets a loot of words, but as I see it on most technical grounds
> > > PostgreSQL is better, soon MySQL might get some of the stuffe that
> > > PostgreSQL has hade for a long time... But MySQL should do the work.
> > >
> > Why do people have to regurgitate crap they heard somewhere, regardless
> > of wether or not they even understand it, much less wether or not its
> > true? Mysql is a significantly better choice over postgres for this
> > application. Not only will it perform much better, but you won't have
> > to worry about corrupt indexes, or having to vaccuum the database all
> > the time.
> You quite obviously don't have real-world experience with the two.
> MySQL doesn't have the stability that PG does. I know this from
> real-world usage. Plus it is slower than PG under heavy load; slower
> for doing updates or writes to the data; and has less functionality in
> terms of the SQL language (doesn't have subselects, transactions, etc.).