Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

From: bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly})
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Date: 2004-12-06 01:24:46
Message-ID: 20041206.0124.58723snz@dsl.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Saturday, in article
<tto3r01vijeu2n9ggr6r5pl3p36bcmn1nf(at)4ax(dot)com>
robert(dot)mcclenon(at)verizon(dot)net "Robert McClenon" wrote:

> I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
> has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
> a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only
> the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what
> happens if the czar disappears, for instance.

Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Derek Fountain 2004-12-06 01:33:50 When to encrypt
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2004-12-06 01:23:59 Re: Function Problem