On L, 2004-09-04 at 16:24, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:11:54 -0500
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> > > I'm not aware of any generally accepted definitions of generations
> > > of > > database management systems.
> >
> > Nor am I, but I'd say MySQL would be at least 2 if not 3 or 4
> > generations behind PostgreSQL if there was such a thing :). PostgreSQL
> > would also be a generation or two behind Oracle.
>
> Bzzzt! Do you work in Oracle's marketing department? PostgreSQL is not
> a generation behind Oracle by any reasonable definition. We may lack
> some features that they have but they lack some features we have. You
> need to do some constructive defining to put one ahead of the other.
Maybe he means version numbers (MySQL 4.x, Postgres 7.x(soon 8.x),
Oracle 10.x) ?
-----------------
Hannu
