Re: PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet article...

From: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Robert J(dot) Sanford, Jr(dot)" <rsanford(at)trefs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet article...
Date: 2002-08-19 21:34:23
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0208192229480.1042-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Robert J. Sanford, Jr. wrote:

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,474127,00.asp

I almost hate to be in on one of these my DB is better than yours/effective
marketing threads but...

That reads to me as more of a MySQL article than anything else, except perhaps
a one still has to buy a 'proper' DB if one wants a 'proper' DB. Perhaps one of
the things giving me that view is that while MySQL is sounding like it's coming
on leaps and bounds with a release every 6 months and is adding this and that
functionality all PostgreSQL can come up with is replication because it's
already got the rest.

I bet noone ever thought having functionality someone else didn't would result
in better press for the other.

--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Linn Kubler 2002-08-19 22:22:42 Functions question
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-08-19 21:17:30 Re: Updating a date field