public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Joshua Berkus <[email protected]>
Cc: w^3 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Advantages page out of date
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:12:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CABUevEwG4EkzCycAAOuciVUtyibaYnJKK0W0w1HrXjX9JT+CRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3UJRFdBT8m3yh_0m84rGdw5b-GqYn7_kHL0eBAKuvhxNqUYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK3UJRGOyQ7ukXGH7Bdv7Gq1csvkdH8LMd+HErHaBBYnjGaBMw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAK3UJRFdBT8m3yh_0m84rGdw5b-GqYn7_kHL0eBAKuvhxNqUYg@mail.gmail.com>
On Saturday, May 19, 2012, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On 5/18/12, Joshua Berkus <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > No question. It's not remotely the only page which is horribly out of
> date,
> > either.
> >
> > Think you could write up replacement text for the page?
>
> Sure. A quick fix (patch: advantages_quickfix.diff) would be to remove
> just that line, and leave Hot stand-by covered by the entry for
> 'Replication'.
>
> I think a better solution (patch: advantages_link_matrix.diff) would
> be to simply link the user to the Feature Matrix, instead of trying to
> summarize some arbitrary subset of those features under Technical
> Features.
>
I think this is definitely the best idea for now, so I've applied this
version of the patch.
If we did want to keep something like the Technical Features section
> around, I think its scope should be narrowed down to features which
> are rare, nonexistent, or limited in our competitors. Support for
> Unicode, sub-selects, views, etc. may have been cutting-edge features
> back when that page was written, but is not such a draw these days.
> Things like SP-GiST, KNN, per-transaction durability control, SSI,
> SE-Postgres, transactional DDL, JSON and Range types, etc. along with
> a summary of why they're better than our competitor implementations
> would make for an interesting read IMO. But this kind of prose seems
> like it'd be better suited for the wiki anyway... there's not already
> a page like that, other than the comparisons against MySQL, is there?
> I'd be happy to help start a page like that.
Yeah, I think that might be better suited on the wiki. At least, that's a
good place to start.
Perhaps a future development could be a version of the feature matrix that
instead of having postgresql versions on the "x axis", it would instead
have typical competitors.
Could be combined with the rumored feature I was once working on that would
let you dynamically pick which columns would show up in the feature matrix,
to customize your own comparisons between the versions you are actually
interested in :)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
view thread (4+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Advantages page out of date
In-Reply-To: <CABUevEwG4EkzCycAAOuciVUtyibaYnJKK0W0w1HrXjX9JT+CRw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox