Hi!
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> As to mySQL, I've never used it, but I understand it's a very fast, but
I had some experience with MySQL, and yes - it is very fast.
> limited, subset of SQL. The biggest drawback I see referenced is the
> lack of transaction support.
W
At 14:59 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I second the opinion that postgreSQL implements a very flexible and
>extensive set of SQL functionality.
>
>$2000 is chump change if the application is a mission critical one. The
>Costs of losing the data or downtime of the database easily exceed $2000 (in
>pr
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: PGSQL-General (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:22 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres
>Eric -
>I've redirected your question to the general list, since it seems to fit
>in there better than the s
Eric -
I've redirected your question to the general list, since it seems to fit
in there better than the sql list. I think you're confusing mySQL's
limitations with those of PostgreSQL (PG from here on) - PG does in fact
support views, has for quite a while. They're even updateable. With each
rel
