[»]
Re: MySQL instead of PostgreSQL - downgrade?
by Arjen van Efferen - Jun 18th 2002 12:44:27
> It uses MySQL instead of PostgreSQL -
> it's not clear, is it advantage or
> disadvantage? Personally I think it is a
> downgrade to use a system based on DB
> with unstable ACID. But I might miss
> something.
Xoops itself uses only MySQL at this time. Since XoopsForge is based on
Xoops, it uses mysql too. Xoops is going to support PostgreSQL and so will
XoopsForge.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: MySQL instead of PostgreSQL - downgrade?
by Evil Azrael - Jul 27th 2002 07:43:56
funny!
i read the description, thought "what a crap" an closed the window, but
came back to write a comment about this disadvantage. but hey, somebody
other had the same thought!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: MySQL instead of PostgreSQL - downgrade?
by Stefan Koopmanschap - Sep 12th 2002 07:05:45
> It uses MySQL instead of PostgreSQL -
> it's not clear, is it advantage or
> disadvantage? Personally I think it is a
> downgrade to use a system based on DB
> with unstable ACID. But I might miss
> something.
I don't think it's a downgrade at all. the amount of webhosts supporting
mysql is much bigger than the amount of webhosts supporting postgreSQL, so
XoopSForge can be installed on a much wider range of servers this way.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: MySQL instead of PostgreSQL - downgrade?
by Christopher Cashell - Dec 19th 2002 18:18:45
> I don't think it's a downgrade at all.
> the amount of webhosts supporting mysql
> is much bigger than the amount of
> webhosts supporting postgreSQL, so
> XoopSForge can be installed on a much
> wider range of servers this way.
I think in this instance, he was refering to downgrade in regards to the
quality of the database. Many people consider PostgreSQL to be a higher
quality database than MySQL, and it also supports a number of more advanced
features.
MySQL is more widely available, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
better. ;-)
--
Toph
[reply]
[top]
