On Friday 09 April 2004 3:23 am, David Wall wrote:
> Wow, thanks. Yeah, I agree about priorities. The problem doesn't bother
> me at all since we've not seen any issues with PG and it's worked like a
> champ for several years in multiple deployments, including being used in
> Fortune 500 deployments, by our office edition licensees of Signed &
> Secured, and to drive our public web service at yozons.com. It's just been
> awesome, fast and reliable. In fact, when we had to port Oracle, we had to
> "dumb down" our application a bit because of their odd handling of BLOBs,
> inability to support multiple TEXT (LONG) fields in a single table and
> their shorter table and field names.
I am rather keen to develop a service porting people toPG from Oracle.
I have always got the impression that this was a non-no due to the PL side of
What can Oracle do that PG can't ?
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Rawnsley||Date: 2004-04-09 11:13:01|
|Subject: Re: [OT] Porting from Oracle [was Connection Idle in transaction]|
|Previous:||From: Oliver Jowett||Date: 2004-04-09 06:25:35|
|Subject: Re: About a JDBC error|