| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replication |
| Date: | 2004-04-22 02:09:46 |
| Message-ID: | m3oepklq51.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Quoth uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com ("Uwe C. Schroeder"):
> I concur. However the problem SAP had some 18years ago when they
> invented their system were massive differences between
> databases. The scope they had in mind didn't allow for whole
> database layers to be redundant just for the sake of being able to
> talk to several database engines - ergo they wrote one layer and
> omitted using vendor dependant database features. Nowadays most
> relevant databases are pretty compatible when it comes to
> constraints, so if you stick to the basics you should be fine now.
One of the issues was always that of locking. Different systems still
have different semantics.
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
I've implemented a parser combinator library in Generic C#, and indeed
what is pretty clear in a functional language looks extremely
scientific in an object-oriented one. -- Peter Sestoft
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Seymour | 2004-04-22 02:27:03 | Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-04-22 02:08:07 | Re: Replication |