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

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?
Date: 2006-07-31 21:46:45
Message-ID: 44CE7A45.70400@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>>> The good news is that from a memory and perfomance standpoint, my simple 
>>>> test now shows us outperforming mysql:
>>> Sweet ;-)
>> I love this team.  Kudos!
> 
> So now it's MySQL users' turn to say, "Sure, but speed isn't
> everything...." :-)

"Sure, but speed isn't everything... We can accept 02/31/2006 as a valid 
date. Let's see PostgreSQL do that!"

Joshua D. Drake

> 


-- 

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/



In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-07-31 22:29:35
Subject: Suggested changes to Tutorial
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2006-07-31 20:44:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-07-31 22:04:42
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-31 21:46:12
Subject: Re: DTrace enabled build fails

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-07-31 22:26:30
Subject: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2006-07-31 20:44:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

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