From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Naeslund(t)" <mag(at)fbab(dot)net> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some Aberdeen report |
Date: | 2004-04-02 00:26:37 |
Message-ID: | 20040401202559.M91030@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
we're discussing it on -advocacy, and "some facts wrong" ranks as *the*
understatement of the week :) There are more facts wrong on it then there
are right :(
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Magnus Naeslund(t) wrote:
> Has anyone read this?:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/78285/
>
> It seems that it has some facts wrong about postgresql in there, for
> example it claims that postgresql doesn't have rowlevel locking,
> deadlock detection, or even encryption (i think protocol security here).
>
> This might be an interesting read, and i think someone from the
> marketing lists/group should send them an friendly mail pointing out any
> wrong facts, i don't feel too sure about what (more) they might have
> gotten wrong.
>
> Regards
> Magnus
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryan Riehle | 2004-04-02 01:52:22 | |
Previous Message | Wes Palmer | 2004-04-02 00:17:09 | Re: Compound keys and foreign constraints |