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 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
release, more and more of the SQL92 function set is implemented, and
what's not can usually be worked around. I'm new to all this DB stuff,
myself, but I haven't bumped up against limitations of the
implementation yet - I hit the limits of my knowledge first!

As to mySQL, I've never used it, but I understand it's a very fast, but
limited, subset of SQL. The biggest drawback I see referenced is the
lack of transaction support.

My 2 cents,

Ross

Eric Enockson wrote:
>
>
>         hi,
>
>         I am going to be implementing an online database and
> was considering oracle on an ultra, until i checked the price
> and 2,000 dollars, no way.  I have used mSQL and looked
> at mySQL and now am aware of postgres and have heard that it
> is the most robust and well used of the freeware databases.
> Is this correct?  Also i am wondering about it's sql 92 support,
> i see that it doesn't have views and some other things, but my
> question is this.  For those of you who are using it, what is your
> opinion of it's functionality sql wise?  Is it sufficient, do
> wish that you had more?  If you could afford it would you rather
> be using oracle?  I can afford oracle as i'm not going to be
> paying, but 2000 just seems unresonable.  I don't want to
> pay for suits and corporate planes, i just want to run software.
>
>         Any help, comments, advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
>         Eric Enockson

--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005