Re: Making it easier on translators

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:

> Daniel Veillard <Daniel Veillard w3 org> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 03:16:51PM +0100, Martin Baulig wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't like this very much.
> > > 
> > > As I see the situation, you (Hector) just need a SQL database so it doesn't
> > > make any difference which particular implementation we're using on the server
> > > side (I don't know about PHP, but in Perl you can use the DBI module which
> > > allows you to use the same code to access any SQL database).
> > 
> >   Though I'm using MySql myself, I think that one of the differences
> > between both databases is that MySql has lower text handling capabilities
> > than PostgreSQL (I18N and indexing capabilities comes to mind). But
> > MySQL is closing problems fast so it's worth double-checking.
> 
> Well, I don't know much about PostgreSQL, but MySQL has a very good
> authentication mechanism and more than that, it's just a pain for the sysadmin
> team to maintain two SQL database installations.
> 
> I don't know who this thing will get things in and out of CVS, but I think
> this database will just be used to store data in it, or am I wrong ?

While I don't think I need to get involved here, I will briefly say
that I agree with Martin 100% that it would be much better if we can
use the existing MySQL setup than adding PostgreSQL.

I'm not as certain as Martin that the MySQL authentication mechanism
is very good, but I am sure that it is easier to maintain security for
just MySQL then for two databases. And the same applies for backups,
package updates, etc.

However, if we really do need PostgreSQL, it shouldn't be a problem to
install it.

Regards,

                                        Owen