In article <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)4(dot)21(dot)0308220805290(dot)11798-100000(at)tiger(dot)tigrasoft(dot)hu>,
Hornyak Laszlo <kocka(at)tigrasoft(dot)hu> writes:
> Hi all!
> Can someone explain me why is it usefull if the table created in
> transaction disapears on rollback?
> Anyway the progress db supports it, at least the version 9.
> The other question: why is mysql enemy? Isn`t it just another RDBMS?
Your second question is answered by someone in a recent posting on the
MySQL mailing list:
> As an Oracle DBA (I'm one myself), InnoDB will give you "close to Oracle"
> As an FYI, we also spent alot of time looking @ Postres and SAPDB. Postgres
> is a great database engine, and would be very adequate if it didn't have one
> significant missing feature - there is no replication or standby support
> unless you buy an expensive licence (which brings the cost close to that of
> Oracle); we need the high-availability of clusters and replication. Both
> Postgres and MySQL have great support via their mailing lists, but once in a
> while, the people on the Postgres mailing list decide to kick MySQL around a
> bit; I think they have an inferiority complex.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Manfred Koizar||Date: 2003-08-22 10:53:29|
|Subject: Re: Buglist|
|Previous:||From: Shridhar Daithankar||Date: 2003-08-22 08:36:48|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Autoresponder||Date: 2003-08-22 10:15:39|
|Subject: Re: Your details|
|Previous:||From: Autoresponder||Date: 2003-08-22 09:51:03|
|Subject: Re: Wicked screensaver|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2003-08-22 10:37:14|
|Subject: Re: query optimization: aggregate and distinct|
|Previous:||From: sharvari N||Date: 2003-08-22 09:01:13|
|Subject: a problem |