From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two |
Date: | 2004-08-30 03:58:35 |
Message-ID: | 200408292358.35310.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:46, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> My critique of this version:
> > PostgreSQL 8.0 contains many new features that make the database a viable
> > contender in the enterprise against the likes of Oracle and DB2. The
> > full list can be found at the PostgreSQL website, but some of the major
> > features include:
>
> "viable contendor" is too weak of a phrase. "solid contendor"?
> "competitor?"
>
make the database a viable alternative in the....
make the database an even better alternative to the likes of...
of course I'd recommend against any specific product mentions of competitors
if it were me...
> > Native Windows Support: PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows
> > operating systems and does not need an emulation layer. This provides a
> > big speed boost under Windows and makes PostgreSQL a viable replacement
> > for Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Maybe remove "operating" from "Windows operating systems".
>
> "big speed boost" is a little vague.
>
> "viable" is again a little weak. Perhaps "allows an upgrade from
> Microsoft SQL Server?" :)
Given the reluctance of most of core to promote win32 postgresql, I think this
whole section should take on a different slant... something like:
Native Windows Support: PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows systems
without the need for special emulation software. This will dramatically
increase the ease of deployment as well as offering developers a true
enterprise class, open source database system to work with on the Windows
platform.
>
> > Savepoints: Savepoints allow specific parts of a transaction to be
> > aborted without affecting the whole transaction. This feature, funded by
> > Fujitsu, is valuable for application developers who require error
> > recovery within complex transactions.
>
> Should we mention the phrase "nested transactions"? Would that be familiar
> to some people, or is that a PostgreSQLism?
>
Nested transactions implys a different syntax than savepoints, and should
probably be avoided to limit confusion.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ewald Geschwinde | 2004-08-30 11:09:09 | Openexchange release |
Previous Message | Joshua Kramer | 2004-08-30 00:41:25 | Fifth Draft - Press Release |