Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  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