Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Uwe C. Schroeder"):
> I concur. However the problem SAP had some 18years ago when they
> invented their system were massive differences between
> databases. The scope they had in mind didn't allow for whole
> database layers to be redundant just for the sake of being able to
> talk to several database engines - ergo they wrote one layer and
> omitted using vendor dependant database features. Nowadays most
> relevant databases are pretty compatible when it comes to
> constraints, so if you stick to the basics you should be fine now.
One of the issues was always that of locking. Different systems still
have different semantics.
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
I've implemented a parser combinator library in Generic C#, and indeed
what is pretty clear in a functional language looks extremely
scientific in an object-oriented one. -- Peter Sestoft
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
