X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB090D1C50C
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2003 20:51:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 70790-06
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2003 17:50:04 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from calma.pair.com (calma.pair.com [209.68.1.95])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E36ABD1C4BD
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2003 17:51:08 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 64176 invoked by uid 3059); 1 Aug 2003 20:51:11 -0000
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:51:11 -0400
From: "Chad N. Tindel" <chad@tindel.net>
To: "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Mysql -> Postgresql pitfalls
Message-ID: <20030801205110.GA63709@calma.pair.com>
References: <20030801163555.GA32496@calma.pair.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.33.0308011426280.30340-100000@css120.ihs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0308011426280.30340-100000@css120.ihs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200308/6
X-Sequence-Number: 1866

> > Excellent!  That is exactly what I'm talking about.
> > 
> > BTW, the "my2pg.pl" link is a dead link.
> 
> This is probably something that could be codified a bit here in the news 
> group.
> 
> I'd say the pitfalls I'm aware of are:
> 
> autoincrement fields -> sequences

Yes.  The documentation very clearly states using sequences instead of 
auto-increment, but it doesn't make it clear that inserting the id's into
data by hand doesn't cause the sequence to be auto-matically incremented.  It'd
be nice of postgres had a way to trigger an update of the sequence value after
every insert containing an id clumn.

> not being able to run postgresql as root (a good thing TM)

<RANT>As a programmer, I personally would never write code that kept people from
running things as root.  I mean, what is the point?  If an administrator
wants to run postgresql or apache as root, why shouldn't they be allowed
to make that conscious decision for themselves?  As it is, you have to recompile
apache with some BIG_SECURITY_HOLE defined in order to run as root, which means
you can't just use the out of the box apache rpm.  Its so stupid to write
*extra* code that keeps people from doing something that isn't even 
fundamentally incorrect.</RANT>

All that being said, I don't think it causes too big of a problem for postgres
installations.

Chad