Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!canisius!elgie
From: elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Referential Integrity in commercial DBMS's?
Message-ID: <2481@canisius.UUCP>
Date: 16 Sep 89 22:29:20 GMT
References: <UZ4DDwa00WB4E2P2JY@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208
Lines: 22

In article <UZ4DDwa00WB4E2P2JY@andrew.cmu.edu>, bg0l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce E. Golightly) writes:
> I feel I have to comment on Ingres bug fixes. A previous post made it sound
> like RTI doesn't fix bugs or provide work-arounds, but only makes excuses.
> This is not the case in our experience.
> 
  We started with version 2 on VMS and are now on version 5.somethingorother
  on ULTRIX and MIPS RISCos.  Throughout, we have found INGRES to be stable
  and certainly not "buggy".  We have encountered some bugs over the years,
  but I would say that, especially given the complexity of the system, INGRES
  has been "cleaner" than most of the commercial software we have used.
> 
> Beyond that, Ingres is still my product of choice. When there have been bugs,
> we usually get a work-around quickly, sometimes during the initial trouble
> report call. In most cases, a patch tape is forth-coming within a week or
> so. (There have been a couple that went longer, though.)
> 
  We have never been told that "yes, we know about the bug and it will be fixed
  in the next release".  INGRES tech people have been willing to log in to 
  trace down problems we have encountered.  Also, INGRES has never hassled us
  about "bugs" that they traced down to our own programming errors.

  greg pavlov (under borrowed account), fstrf, amherst, ny