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@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
