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

Re: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres

From: Jim Jennis <jhjennis(at)shentel(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres
Date: 1999-03-25 22:48:36
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-general
At 14:59 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I second the opinion that postgreSQL implements a very flexible and
>extensive set of SQL functionality.
>$2000 is chump change if the application is a mission critical one.  The
>Costs of losing the data or downtime of the database easily exceed $2000 (in
>probably the first minutes of downtime).  I think in your choice of
>databases this is one of the more important factors to consider.  There are
>also many competitors to Oracle too out there which you might want to
Yes, it is chump change, and Oracle is not the only answer (although they
would like you to believe it). Informix, DB-2, Sybase, Solid are all good
data bases and also run on Linux.

Competition is wonderful!



FSC - Building Better Information Technology Solutions-
      From the Production Floor to the Customer's Door.

Jim Jennis, Technical Director, Commercial Systems
Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.
1161Y Winchester Ave.
Martinsburg, WV. 25401 USA.

Phone: +001 (304) 264-2290
FAX:   +001 (304) 263-8777

Email: jjennis(at)fuentez(dot)com

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1999-03-26 03:35:51
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was expected (vacuum command)
Previous:From: Peter BlazsoDate: 1999-03-25 22:40:09
Subject: Postgres logo, copyrights, etc...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group