On Jan 18, 2008 8:09 AM, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 6:46 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
> > legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
> > modularity I'm not sur
On Jan 17, 2008 6:46 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
> legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
> modularity I'm not sure that it's got any great claim to fame.
> To me modularity connotes an emph
Hope Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We know that PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows
> users to select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily
> replace one part without affecting other parts. However, as I know, most
> database engine, like MySQL,
Hope Ho wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have some questions about PostgreSQL's modularity. We know that
> PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows users to
> select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily replace
> one part without affecting other parts. However,
Dear all,
I have some questions about PostgreSQL's modularity.
We know that PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows
users to select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily
replace one part without affecting other parts. However, as I know, most
database
