| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: transactions |
| Date: | 2002-10-16 17:25:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1034789151.31803.60.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql
> > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they
> > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame
> > > crap??? Probably not.
> >
> > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL
> > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise
> > database". While that is presumably something beyond just
> > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed
> > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas?
>
> They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy.
>
s/guy/ploy
Robert Treat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-10-16 17:42:08 | Re: information |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-16 17:24:12 | Re: information |