That's a problem with "what you think it did", not with the ALTER command.
It could be both. In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that PostgreSQL's permission system is more powerful, so of course it's going to be harder to use and easier to get wrong. PostgreSQL lets you do more things, and consequently lets you do more things wrong.
Multiple users (either an admin team, or advanced users who are trusted with (limited) SQL access), who all need to have the same permissions.
Good point. That's not a case I've ever had to do, since every database I've ever co-admininstered was not only ever accessed by maintainers and middleware.
However, I will note, for the record, that you didn't defend splitting access permissions between the data dictionary and pg_hba.conf. Implementing IP-based restrictions in PostgreSQL is even more painful than it is in MySQL.
To claim that PostgreSQL is objectively better than MySQL (and it is!) is not to claim that every single thing in PostgreSQL is easier than it is in MySQL. I moved from MySQL to PostgreSQL probably ten years ago, and this is the only thing I find is less elegant. Thankfully, changing user permissions isn't a common occurrence in the majority of setups.
One can not be omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time.
You have not disproven the existence of any gods, you have merely reduced the viable search space. And you certainly haven't disproven the existence any gods "in the biblical sense"; the classical "omnis" are Greek, not Hebrew, and as such you won't find them listed (let alone used as some kind of definition) in the Bible. See open theism for one example.
As it happens, it's almost trivially easy to prove that some gods exist. The Roman cult of Sol Invictus worshipped the unconquered Sun. The Sun was, by any reasonable definition of the word "god", their god. Moreover, the Sun, by any reasonable scientific test you care to name, exists. Therefore at least one god exists. QED
If this sounds like semantic wordplay, it's no worse than what you just did. But on a more serious note, the interesting question isn't whether or not a god "exists" (since philosophical concepts "exist" in some sense), but whether or not the set of properties claimed of that god are true or not. And even then, it depends on who is doing the claiming as to precisely what is claimed.
Having graduated from MySQL to PostgreSQL many years ago, that's easily the one thing that MySQL has over PostgreSQL.
I don't do a huge amount of database administration, but it's fair to say that every time I need to (say) modify the access of a role in PostgreSQL, I still have to manually verify that every ALTER command did what I think it did, because at least one of them didn't. Oh, and some of it is done with the data dictionary tables and some is done with pg_hba.conf.
That's not to say PostgreSQL is worse, of course; PostgreSQL lets you make fine distinctions which MySQL does not. But for every case that's likely to come up in practice, managing users and roles in MySQL is about ten times faster and simpler than in PostgreSQL.
For what I do, the combination of PL/pgSQL and PostGIS is like nothing else. I can run complex geographic calculations on the database server, which saves a huge amount of network traffic.
CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail.
Indeed, so write the law so the effect is to freeze assets, which would then be forfeited if a successful conviction happens.
I don't own either system, but from what I understand they both run some kind of operating system that's always running in the background and gets summoned if a user pauses the game to bring it up.
It's more than that. There are a bunch of features such as streaming (e.g. Twitch), picture-in-picture mode, and so on, which must always be available. Whether or not these are benefits or not is for others to decide, but those things are reasonably resource-intensive, so dedicating a CPU or two to them makes a certain amount of sense.
What I suspect happened is they optimised the system software to the point where these tasks can all run on one CPU.
Speaking as someone who, back in the late 80's, out of my own fear due to ignorance and a lack of foresight, voted to shut down Rancho Seco, [...]
If it's any consolation, you were probably right at the time. We can only talk about how good nuclear power is now because of the moratorium on new plants which let us skip a generation of reactor design. If the US had been building nuclear plants in the 80s, your electricity bill today would still mostly be paying off the capital costs.
I don't want to get into an argument about biblical exegesis (reading ancient texts with our post-Enlightenment mindset is fraught with difficulty at the best of times). My point is that what Ussher did wasn't at all stupid. Actually it was remarkably smart and scientific by the standards of his day, and given what little he had to work with.
Some bishop interpreting the old testament came to that conclusion, [...]
James Ussher gets a lot of crap for this, and I think it's quite unfair. He didn't just use the Hebrew sacred texts, he actually used all ancient texts at his disposal, such as Greek mythological texts, and found that they all stopped at around the same point. When you consider the constraints that he was working with, this is actually quite a scientific approach. Moreover, 4000 BCE is probably close to the limit of human cultural memory, given that writing wasn't developed until about 3000 BCE.
Ussher was neither the first nor the last person to try this and come up with a similar figure. We probably wouldn't remember Ussher's chronology today if it weren't for some idiot adding it to annotations in the King James Bible.
The Protestants made a big deal out of a lie. The same Protestants who today have so much trouble understanding science isn't an attack on thier religion.
With all due respect to your father, Mendel and Lemaitre (and Lamarck, for that matter) probably knew more about both religion and science than he did.
Well I don't know about the Republican plan, but a Republican plan was much like Obamacare, only less watered-down. RomneyCare was, of course, based on Nixon's health care plan which was never passed.
Oh, you mean the current crowd of what-passes-for-Republicans? Yeah, pretty much what you said.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a problem with "what you think it did", not with the ALTER command.
It could be both. In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that PostgreSQL's permission system is more powerful, so of course it's going to be harder to use and easier to get wrong. PostgreSQL lets you do more things, and consequently lets you do more things wrong.
Multiple users (either an admin team, or advanced users who are trusted with (limited) SQL access), who all need to have the same permissions.
Good point. That's not a case I've ever had to do, since every database I've ever co-admininstered was not only ever accessed by maintainers and middleware.
However, I will note, for the record, that you didn't defend splitting access permissions between the data dictionary and pg_hba.conf. Implementing IP-based restrictions in PostgreSQL is even more painful than it is in MySQL.
To claim that PostgreSQL is objectively better than MySQL (and it is!) is not to claim that every single thing in PostgreSQL is easier than it is in MySQL. I moved from MySQL to PostgreSQL probably ten years ago, and this is the only thing I find is less elegant. Thankfully, changing user permissions isn't a common occurrence in the majority of setups.
One can not be omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time.
You have not disproven the existence of any gods, you have merely reduced the viable search space. And you certainly haven't disproven the existence any gods "in the biblical sense"; the classical "omnis" are Greek, not Hebrew, and as such you won't find them listed (let alone used as some kind of definition) in the Bible. See open theism for one example.
As it happens, it's almost trivially easy to prove that some gods exist. The Roman cult of Sol Invictus worshipped the unconquered Sun. The Sun was, by any reasonable definition of the word "god", their god. Moreover, the Sun, by any reasonable scientific test you care to name, exists. Therefore at least one god exists. QED
If this sounds like semantic wordplay, it's no worse than what you just did. But on a more serious note, the interesting question isn't whether or not a god "exists" (since philosophical concepts "exist" in some sense), but whether or not the set of properties claimed of that god are true or not. And even then, it depends on who is doing the claiming as to precisely what is claimed.
Occam's razor is not science.
No, Occam's razor is a theorem in Bayesian model fitting. Here's a pretty good introduction.
I think I misunderstood the point that the GP was trying to make. The phrase "how truly trivial that limit is" could be taken several ways.
...unless the trade secret is data, of course.
Still illegal and likely unconstitutional.
We'll see about that.
Does it do OpenGIS?
Hang on a sec, lemme check...
[root@machine-name-redacted postgres]# du -h base | tail -1
32G base
Sorry, you were saying?
Nope, the answer is Perl.
MySQL is simply easier to use and administer.
Having graduated from MySQL to PostgreSQL many years ago, that's easily the one thing that MySQL has over PostgreSQL.
I don't do a huge amount of database administration, but it's fair to say that every time I need to (say) modify the access of a role in PostgreSQL, I still have to manually verify that every ALTER command did what I think it did, because at least one of them didn't. Oh, and some of it is done with the data dictionary tables and some is done with pg_hba.conf.
That's not to say PostgreSQL is worse, of course; PostgreSQL lets you make fine distinctions which MySQL does not. But for every case that's likely to come up in practice, managing users and roles in MySQL is about ten times faster and simpler than in PostgreSQL.
For what I do, the combination of PL/pgSQL and PostGIS is like nothing else. I can run complex geographic calculations on the database server, which saves a huge amount of network traffic.
CAF was originally created to fight the mafia and rich drug dealers who had the money to hire the best lawyers and to take their assets away so they wouldn't have anything to come back to after jail.
Indeed, so write the law so the effect is to freeze assets, which would then be forfeited if a successful conviction happens.
No conviction, no crime. No crime, no forfeiture.
I don't own either system, but from what I understand they both run some kind of operating system that's always running in the background and gets summoned if a user pauses the game to bring it up.
It's more than that. There are a bunch of features such as streaming (e.g. Twitch), picture-in-picture mode, and so on, which must always be available. Whether or not these are benefits or not is for others to decide, but those things are reasonably resource-intensive, so dedicating a CPU or two to them makes a certain amount of sense.
What I suspect happened is they optimised the system software to the point where these tasks can all run on one CPU.
Speaking as someone who, back in the late 80's, out of my own fear due to ignorance and a lack of foresight, voted to shut down Rancho Seco, [...]
If it's any consolation, you were probably right at the time. We can only talk about how good nuclear power is now because of the moratorium on new plants which let us skip a generation of reactor design. If the US had been building nuclear plants in the 80s, your electricity bill today would still mostly be paying off the capital costs.
I don't want to get into an argument about biblical exegesis (reading ancient texts with our post-Enlightenment mindset is fraught with difficulty at the best of times). My point is that what Ussher did wasn't at all stupid. Actually it was remarkably smart and scientific by the standards of his day, and given what little he had to work with.
So... do you have to be a Roman Catholic virgin to apply?
The boy and his family might not deserve the $15 million, but the school certainly deserves having it taken from them.
If I could give you all the mod points, I would.
Some bishop interpreting the old testament came to that conclusion, [...]
James Ussher gets a lot of crap for this, and I think it's quite unfair. He didn't just use the Hebrew sacred texts, he actually used all ancient texts at his disposal, such as Greek mythological texts, and found that they all stopped at around the same point. When you consider the constraints that he was working with, this is actually quite a scientific approach. Moreover, 4000 BCE is probably close to the limit of human cultural memory, given that writing wasn't developed until about 3000 BCE.
Ussher was neither the first nor the last person to try this and come up with a similar figure. We probably wouldn't remember Ussher's chronology today if it weren't for some idiot adding it to annotations in the King James Bible.
[...] the Catholics are no offshoot!
There are some Eastern Orthodox would would disagree with that assessment.
The Protestants made a big deal out of a lie. The same Protestants who today have so much trouble understanding science isn't an attack on thier religion.
No, they are not "the same Protestants". The post-1970s US-style evangelical fundamentalists weren't around in the days of Galileo.
You might find some chaff in that list, but you'll see there's still plenty of scientists in multiple fields that are tied to the Church.
If the alternative is the tenure track, grant-chasing, publish-or-perish career path, I can kind of see the appeal.
Probably, everyone admitted that those fascists European dictators of the mid 20th century got their trains to run on time.
Mussolini made it illegal to point out that the trains weren't running on time.
It would be more correct to say that some specifics are up for debate, in the sense that the work of science is never done.
With all due respect to your father, Mendel and Lemaitre (and Lamarck, for that matter) probably knew more about both religion and science than he did.
Well I don't know about the Republican plan, but a Republican plan was much like Obamacare, only less watered-down. RomneyCare was, of course, based on Nixon's health care plan which was never passed.
Oh, you mean the current crowd of what-passes-for-Republicans? Yeah, pretty much what you said.