On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, 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?
Yeah, they're pissed off that they weren't chosen.
Vince.
--
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio!
