Re: FW: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet

I did like the fact that PostgreSQL Inc. was described as "one of many
companies providing the PostgreSQL database", since one of the killer
myths is the lack of support options available, however it's unfortunate
that they misspelled the name of the company as Postgre-SQL Inc.
Perhaps someone from the PostgreSQL can contact them and get it fixed?

Another thing I was thinking was that, from an advocacy standpoint, we
might want to start using the phrase "better than row level locking"
more often, as this is one of the key differentiators for PostgreSQL,
and a good counter to the "We're going to have row level locking soon"
arguments.

Robert Treat

On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 04:04, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> 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
> didn't scale'.
> - 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
> two.
>
> --> better than some other articles, I think.
>
> cheers
> -- vbi
>
> --
> secure email with gpg http://fortytwo.ch/gpg