Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net>
Cc: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
Date: 2003-06-10 19:09:39
Message-ID: 200306102009.39483.dev@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

On Tuesday 10 Jun 2003 7:55 pm, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Gearon [mailto:gearond(at)cvc(dot)net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:13 AM
> > To: Dann Corbit
> > Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com; jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr;
> > pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
> >
> >
> > For Postgres?
>
> Maybe I was hallucinating. I thought I remembered that someone at
> Redhat was going to work through the NIST validation suite, but I can't
> remember where I read it and I can't find the message.

I seem to remember someone from RedHat asking a question about some fairly
obscure SQL-compliance problem recently. Something with aggregates in
sub-selects? No official announcements I know of though.

--
Richard Huxton

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-06-10 19:09:45 Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2003-06-10 19:05:11 Re: Re-ordering .CONF params ... questions for this list

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-06-10 19:09:45 Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
Previous Message Dann Corbit 2003-06-10 18:55:22 Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM