In article <200210161647(dot)g9GGl4t08435(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
>> 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.
... who didn't know that MySQL _does_ support transactions :-)