X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A2ADA896 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:36:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73903-05 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp-out1.oct.nac.net (smtp-out1.oct.nac.net [209.123.233.211]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04AD2DA869 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:36:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 584 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2005 15:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.100?) (207.99.52.161) by smtp-out1.oct.nac.net with SMTP; 20 Oct 2005 15:36:15 -0000 Message-ID: <4357B9F3.8060902@nac.net> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:38:27 -0400 From: Wendell Anderson Reply-To: wanderson@nac.net User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050817) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cegarry@yahoo.com Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Article on Oracle & MySQL in E-week X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.374 required=5 tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/267 X-Sequence-Number: 23120 You are quite incorrect in stating that MySQL can now claim "parity" with PostgreSQL through it's release of version 5.0. Knowledgeable database experts and administrators who are famiiar with both technologies are aware of "considerable " differences that, at this time still accrue to postgreSQL, e.g. for one example - Object Relational functions. Please limit your statements to areas where you have "some" knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. W. Anderson Ontario, Canada