X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897B9D1E909 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 03:04:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94180-10 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 03:04:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from www.postgresql.com (www.postgresql.com [200.46.204.209]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87256D1E129 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 03:02:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by www.postgresql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CD5CF6575 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:13:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3M3DOT1048218 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 03:13:24 GMT (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i3M2oLNj040294 for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 02:50:21 GMT From: Christopher Browne X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.general Subject: Re: Replication Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:09:46 -0400 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <40869207.8020509@Yahoo.com> <20040421172803.GA325@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <200404211539.06102.uwe@oss4u.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-message-flag: Outlook is rather hackable, isn't it? X-Home-Page: http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/ X-Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:FJIB/tqLhIDEZSph4388d3DRHdA= To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DOMAIN_4U2 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200404/811 X-Sequence-Number: 60053 Quoth uwe@oss4u.com ("Uwe C. Schroeder"): > I concur. However the problem SAP had some 18years ago when they > invented their system were massive differences between > databases. The scope they had in mind didn't allow for whole > database layers to be redundant just for the sake of being able to > talk to several database engines - ergo they wrote one layer and > omitted using vendor dependant database features. Nowadays most > relevant databases are pretty compatible when it comes to > constraints, so if you stick to the basics you should be fine now. One of the issues was always that of locking. Different systems still have different semantics. -- output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html I've implemented a parser combinator library in Generic C#, and indeed what is pretty clear in a functional language looks extremely scientific in an object-oriented one. -- Peter Sestoft