Re: Some Aberdeen report

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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