On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 03:43:56PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 19:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> No, but does that mean we should increase the potential by adding in
> > >> something that not everyone that runs PostgreSQL actually uses?
> > >
> > > Using this argument I could say that we don't need primary keys, foreign
> > > keys, views or rules. Especially the latter 3 ;).
> >
> > *slap forehead* *groan*
> >
> > then again, if we could pull it out and move it into loadable modules ...
> > hmmmm ... >:)
>
> Oh goodness. We could declare that we are better then MySQL because our
> referential integrity is optional... oh wait...
Hey, if our RI was optional but we threw an error when you tried to use
it when it was disabled we *would* be better than MySQL...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461