On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 10:43 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Or C, for that matter. Doesn't get much less "limited" than allowing C
> > functions with a very powerful SPI. It's hard to argue with them when
> > they don't provide a single example, however.
>
> 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.
>
I would agree with you except that it was the first problem he
mentioned. Table partitioning and vendor tools were second and third,
respectively. That doesn't seem odd to you?
I can't even recall a single complaint about PostgreSQL's functions in
recent history.
However, you're right, I shouldn't complain since the press is probably
good overall.
> I have already written the editor with a note about the misconception of
> our procedural languages.
>
Thanks, a nicely worded note to the editor is always good.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
