On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:53:07AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:30:43 -0800 > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe there is wording that could be used that would not > > convey that sentiment. > > Such as: > > PostgreSQL is designed as a client / server architecture
Good so far. > and does not normally embed in an optimal way. While could be twisted around to be factually true--it's possible to ship a VM as part of a software package, for example--it's at best misleading. Let's just cut the weasel words out. > Discussion of other product solutions to the embedded problem is > outside the scope of this document. As Alvaro said, it should be possible to put this in a positive light. I still think it is good to name a few places to start the research on embedded SQL DBMSs rather than leave people with the feeling of, "It's all up to you from here. Go away." Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org&extra=pgsql-docs
