On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql
> > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they
> > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame
> > > crap??? Probably not.
> >
> > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL
> > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise
> > database". While that is presumably something beyond just
> > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed
> > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas?
>
> They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy.
>
s/guy/ploy
Robert Treat
