| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Kaare Rasmussen" <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
| Date: | 2006-10-11 18:04:44 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920610111104s8c1bddcx45561657524ca861@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 10/11/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> O.k. guys, the article wasn't perfect but it was a heck of a lot more
> fair an accurate then what we usually see from the press.
True.
> I have already written the editor with a note about the misconception of
> our procedural languages.
True, however, it goes to show the authors level of knowledge when
researching and churning out the book. You'd think there at least
would've been a mention of extending the procedural language.
Of course, Oracle supports C and Java stored procedures and Microsoft
supports procedures with the Common Language Runtime... so I don't
think it's a fair comparison to say, "PostgreSQL can do it and others
can't" just because they didn't mention PL extensibility.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-10-11 18:08:56 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-10-11 18:04:11 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |