From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | <ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PITR Dead horse? |
Date: | 2004-02-05 07:57:14 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B872071C@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolai Tufar [mailto:ntufar(at)pisem(dot)net]
> Sent: 05 February 2004 00:01
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?
>
> Totally agree. Robustness and rock-solidness are the only
> things missing for PostgreSQL to become the killer of certain
> commercial enterprise databases out there.
Well I've only been using PostgreSQL since 1997 and the *only* release I
ever had problems with was 6.3.2. We also use(d) Informix SE, DB2,
Unidata and SQL Server and only Informix and Unidata come close to the
robustness of PostgreSQL - and they're not the ones we need to worry
about.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be continually looking to improve
things, but I don't think this is quite the problem you imply.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2004-02-05 09:01:46 | Re: PITR Dead horse? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-05 05:24:37 | Re: PITR Dead horse? |