From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
Date: | 2006-10-12 00:38:39 |
Message-ID: | 1160613519.31966.77.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 20:18 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> I'm not sure why people in this community are so quick to label anyone who is
> less than glowing about postgresql as "the enemy", but it's really annoying.
I didn't take the "with friends like these..." comment literally, but I
see how many people would interpret that to mean he's an enemy, which he
isn't.
> Maybe these guys were thinking about things like the ability to return
> multiple resultsets and/or the ability to do multiple transactions within a
> stored procedure; both of which are functionality that Oracle and SQL Server
> devotee's have been enjoying for years... (for the curious, see relevant
> threads in the -hackers archives about implementation proposals to add these
> features that as of yet have not gotten off the ground)
I don't think it's fair to say "not gotten off the ground". Most of the
use cases that people were concerned about with multiple transactions in
a function/procedure were solved with the addition of savepoints. I
understand that people still want procedures that are executed outside
any other transactions, but I think significant progress was made
responding to many of the needs. I understand your point though.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2006-10-12 01:36:41 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-10-12 00:18:18 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |