Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
Cc: phil(at)river-bank(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Date: 1998-05-22 14:16:03
Message-ID: 199805221416.KAA28979@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

> Database customers at least in the commercial world can be incredibly
> conservative. It is not at all uncommon to have large sites running DBMS
> engines that are three major releases (ie, well over three years) old.
> Once they get an app working, they really don't want anything to change.

Yes, this is true. Their data is locked in Our database. And you can't
just restart it like a PC OS or word processor. Database demands are
much different.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-05-22 14:16:49 Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous Message Andreas Zeugswetter 1998-05-22 12:56:19 Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :(

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-05-22 14:16:49 Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous Message Peter Mount 1998-05-22 07:53:25 RE: [INTERFACES] Problem building the JDBC driver