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

Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Date: 2004-11-09 21:35:45
Message-ID: 20041109213545.GH17541@phlogiston.dyndns.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:28:12PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Externally, everybody thinks that there should be just one, just like
> there is for other databases. 

I guess it's this thing that I want to understand.  Why do people
believe that?  Because other databases, where "other" are "the ones
I'd actually run important systems on" _don't_ have just one. 

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what 
you told them to.  That actually seems sort of quaint now.
		--J.D. Baldwin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2004-11-09 22:35:29
Subject: Re: Final Copy Edit: Press Release, Page
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-11-09 21:28:12
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

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