Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two
Date: 2004-08-30 03:58:35
Message-ID: 200408292358.35310.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:46, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> My critique of this version:
> > PostgreSQL 8.0 contains many new features that make the database a viable
> > contender in the enterprise against the likes of Oracle and DB2.  The
> > full list can be found at the PostgreSQL website, but some of the major
> > features include:
>
> "viable contendor" is too weak of a phrase. "solid contendor"?
> "competitor?"
>

make the database a viable alternative in the.... 
make the database an even better alternative to the likes of... 

of course I'd recommend against any specific product mentions of competitors 
if it were me...

> > Native Windows Support:  PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows
> > operating systems and does not need an emulation layer.  This provides a
> > big speed boost under Windows and makes PostgreSQL a viable replacement
> > for Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Maybe remove "operating" from "Windows operating systems".
>
> "big speed boost" is a little vague.
>
> "viable" is again a little weak. Perhaps "allows an upgrade from
> Microsoft SQL Server?" :)

Given the reluctance of most of core to promote win32 postgresql, I think this 
whole section should take on a different slant... something like:

Native Windows Support: PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows systems 
without the need for special emulation software. This will dramatically 
increase the ease of deployment as well as offering developers a true 
enterprise class, open source database system to work with on the Windows 
platform.

>
> > Savepoints:  Savepoints allow specific parts of a transaction to be
> > aborted without affecting the whole transaction.  This feature, funded by
> > Fujitsu, is valuable for application developers who require error
> > recovery within complex transactions.
>
> Should we mention the phrase "nested transactions"? Would that be familiar
> to some people, or is that a PostgreSQLism?
>

Nested transactions implys a different syntax than savepoints, and should 
probably be avoided to limit confusion.

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Ewald GeschwindeDate: 2004-08-30 11:09:09
Subject: Openexchange release
Previous:From: Joshua KramerDate: 2004-08-30 00:41:25
Subject: Fifth Draft - Press Release

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group