Hi Matt, I've responded to your message in-line below:
Matt Quackenbush wrote: > Jordan, > > Thanks for the reply. I forgot to post his specific gripes about it. Here > is a quick summary: > > - non-standard sql Indeed. This is true in some rare cases (like case sensitivity) however, it seems all databases take some liberties in regards to this. > - difficult to backup / migrate Really? I've had exceptionally good luck with pg_dump. Just set up a cron job (scheduled task) that dumps the database at specific times, then back up the sql file that it generates. Piece of cake. > - user authenication is weak I completely disagree with this statement. > - difficult to setup I've never personally found clicking on an "OK" button (windows) or installing an RPM (linux) difficult, but to each their own. ;) > - difficult to manage This goes back to what I was saying earlier. It's not difficult, it's just different then what you're used to. You had to learn the details of MS SQL server at one time too, and back when you were a MS SQL newbie, it may have seemed difficult. However, once you became familiar with it and how it worked, it's not difficult at all. The same goes for PostgreSQL. This is one of those places where PostgreSQL community support comes in really handy. I've always had good luck finding answers to my questions via Google and the PostgreSQL user lists. With regards to management tools, I've personally enjoyed using phpPgAdmin with our PostgreSQL databases. It's extremely useful to be able to connect to your database from anywhere. PgAdmin also has it's uses. Alternatively, there are impressive commercial products available for PostgreSQL. They cost, but they're still a good deal less the MS SQL server licences. Here's a good example: http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/manager > Your post was most informative, for sure. But there's one thing that you > mentioned that I was unaware of that is pretty much an instant turn-off for > me: cAsE sEnSiTiViTy. While I subscribe to the same philosophy that your > shop does (everything lower-case) I've run into too many situations in the > past where other people wrote things and changed the case. It has always > proven to be more of a headache than it was worth. Honestly, I completely agree with you on this point. I understand why they did it this way, but it's not very user friendly at all. I personally believe that this is one of the last technical hurdles that PostgreSQL will need to overcome before it can really break in to the database market. It's done amazingly well so far, and once this road block is removed I will be recommending PostgreSQL to a lot more of our customers who wish to move to something more liberal and less expensive then MS SQL. Until then, as you say, porting applications with databases that have upper-case table names and field names is more headache then it's worth... This doesn't stop me from taking advantage of PostgreSQL when writing new applications though. Hope this helps! Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ Blue Dragon Alliance Member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:266019 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
