| From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: transactions |
| Date: | 2002-10-16 15:53:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20021016115346.D8509@mail.libertyrms.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-10-16 15:57:14 | Re: transactions |
| Previous Message | Florian Litot | 2002-10-16 15:30:30 | information |