Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ...
От | Kane Tao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 001101bf3565$9a8c05a0$040101c0@p2400arcane обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ... (davidb@vectormath.com) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Bah, no comment on Microsofts reliability :) But Oracle I have used extensively 7.x versions. I implicitly trust its reliability...except I heard of some probs with version 8 when it came out :) Cant imagine someone using the same version of the database for 35 years tho. By that time you would have upgraded I would imagine. And Oracle upgrades its data types with no probs... ----- Original Message ----- From: <davidb@vectormath.com> To: <pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:51 PM Subject: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ... > emergency personnel tracking database on an offshore oil rig). I've managed > the development of an entire application based on Y2K compliant Oracle only > to find out that it's only Y2K compliant if you enclose EVERY SINGLE F***ING > READ > AND WRITE in a goofy-ass "FORMAT" statement. Although, if you don't use the > FORMAT statement, it will still accept four digit year entries without > barking, and it will also display four digit years based on the two digit > year it actually stores (so I guess if you never know the difference, what > does it matter, right?). By the way, even if you use the Format statement, > Oracle still craps out after 2035. (that application was a safety
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: