Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200408292358.35310.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 8.0 Press Release, Draft Two ("Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:46, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > My critique of this version: > > PostgreSQL 8.0 contains many new features that make the database a viable > > contender in the enterprise against the likes of Oracle and DB2. The > > full list can be found at the PostgreSQL website, but some of the major > > features include: > > "viable contendor" is too weak of a phrase. "solid contendor"? > "competitor?" > make the database a viable alternative in the.... make the database an even better alternative to the likes of... of course I'd recommend against any specific product mentions of competitors if it were me... > > Native Windows Support: PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows > > operating systems and does not need an emulation layer. This provides a > > big speed boost under Windows and makes PostgreSQL a viable replacement > > for Microsoft SQL Server. > > Maybe remove "operating" from "Windows operating systems". > > "big speed boost" is a little vague. > > "viable" is again a little weak. Perhaps "allows an upgrade from > Microsoft SQL Server?" :) Given the reluctance of most of core to promote win32 postgresql, I think this whole section should take on a different slant... something like: Native Windows Support: PostgreSQL now works natively with Windows systems without the need for special emulation software. This will dramatically increase the ease of deployment as well as offering developers a true enterprise class, open source database system to work with on the Windows platform. > > > Savepoints: Savepoints allow specific parts of a transaction to be > > aborted without affecting the whole transaction. This feature, funded by > > Fujitsu, is valuable for application developers who require error > > recovery within complex transactions. > > Should we mention the phrase "nested transactions"? Would that be familiar > to some people, or is that a PostgreSQLism? > Nested transactions implys a different syntax than savepoints, and should probably be avoided to limit confusion. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: