On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:35, arguile(at)lucentstudios(dot)com wrote:
> Robert J. Sanford, Jr. wrote on August 19, 2002
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,474127,00.asp
> I'm forwarding this from general to advocacy just so people are aware of it.
For those that didn't read it:
- not much info in there
- it *is* mentioned, at least, that pgsql has transactions, while it is
announced as novelty for mysql (sort of)
- it is *not* mentioned that many of the features announced for mysql
4.1 are already in pg now.
- it is mentioned that sourceforge switched away from pg 'because it
- it is mentioned that pg will add sql99 schema support
- it is mentioned that pgsql inc is one of several companies offering
commercial support on pg
word count is mysql > pg, but the article does not try to compare the
--> better than some other articles, I think.
secure email with gpg http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Ted Striker||Date: 2002-08-20 18:08:55|
|Subject: Re: FW: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet|
|Previous:||From: arguile||Date: 2002-08-19 22:35:39|
|Subject: FW: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet article...|