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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
