Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment

From: Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment
Date: 2020-06-02 19:44:07
Message-ID: ad3ab0c8-1065-a80a-f613-530967f70729@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 6/2/20 1:56 PM, Tim Clarke wrote:
> On 02/06/2020 19:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> But require a new port, and Enterprises have Processes that must be followed.
>> Sure they do. Automate them.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stephen
>
> +1 for automation, isoX != slow
It is when FW rules must be manually approved (and they do review them all),
then the TASK is converted to a CHANGE and that goes before a CAB meeting.

That's all bypassed with SQL Server and Oracle, though.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ravi Krishna 2020-06-02 19:45:08 Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment
Previous Message TALLURI Nareshkumar 2020-06-02 19:20:46 RE: LOG: could not send data to client: Broken pipe