Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> Thomas Reinke wrote:
>
> > 1) Up front, I'll state that we use 6.3, so a number of
> >the technical glitches may have been solved since...
>
> 6.3 is unbelievably old. Perhaps you weren't getting responses since most
> people don't use versions of PostgreSQL that o
Thomas Reinke wrote:
> 1) Up front, I'll state that we use 6.3, so a number of
>the technical glitches may have been solved since...
6.3 is unbelievably old. Perhaps you weren't getting responses since most
people don't use versions of PostgreSQL that old? I know I tend not to respond
to pos
>
> > once again. The *perception* remains, however, that pgsql still
> > leaves a bit to be desired in the areas of reliability and
> > maintainability. This needs to be remedied. Like I said, progress
> > has been mad, but it appears pgsql isn't quite out of the woods yet.
>
> I keep hearin
