Re: transactions

There is an interview with Larry Ellison in the November issue of Linux Magazine. It appears that he considers MySQL and PostgreSQL irrelivant.
How does that saying go... First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, ..., then you win;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] transactions
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > 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?
>
> They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
> Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(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
>