On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, John Zubac wrote:
I find your statements about Postgres being a huge business risk pretty laughable. First of all, Postgres is based on SQL92 and SQL99 standards which means that most scripts are pretty much the same compared to MSSQL and Oracle. The only thing I have seen to learn are the postgres datatypes. Big deal! PGAdmin III will write most scripts for you and that too is pretty much free. I dealt with it when we started learning and using postgres. I only had experience in Oracle and MSSQL.
If that's the only thing you had to learn, we aren't talking about the same risks. Datatypes are developer level differences. Tuning, sizing, disaster recovery planning, backups, differences in or lack of enterprise features and integration -- these are all very different between databases and fundamental to operating it in an enterprise environment.
You can laugh if you like. I don't laugh about these things, neither do our clients. Many have decided to run postgres and that decision was a good one. Many do not and their decisions were also wise. Several people at the dayjob, including me, travel and speak on postgres, database replication, large architecture management, open source, etc. We promote postgres in many venues. I said: "If you only want to hire people with extensive experience, you're exposing yourself to an enormous business risk by adopting postgres."
There simple aren't that many people that have extensive experience. So you you are hinging the success of your business of one of those people being available, it _is_ an enormous business risk. My arguments here are not against postgres, they are for training and certification -- both help dramatically increase the pool of people with sufficient experience.
Also comparing Postgres to MYSQL is also pretty funny, since there are instances of MYSQL LOSING databases due to corruption because they do not have PITR and their transaction rollback feature did not work properly last time I checked. This is really a issue of people being close minded to great database software and not being able to sell it to their superiors.
It's not funny at all. Just like comparing PostgreSQL to Apache isn't funny (Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in the global 2000). The fact that MySQL has lost data is not germane to the discussion. There have been bugs in PostgreSQL as well. And there has been data loss with PostgreSQL and Oracle and MSSQL. We're talking about business risks due to resource availability in the job market capable of managing postgresql in an enterprise environment. And was stating that solid certification programs can and will increase the availability of those resources and reduce the risks in adopting postgres as a solution.
I, along with most of the people in the community, believe in PostgreSQL, believe in the direction development is going in and want to see adoption increase.
This is the way I sold postgres to my boss. It is opensource (low cost), all the features of MSSQL and then some, WAY FASTER than MSSQL on a BSD platform, very good recovery when the database gets corrupted (this happens to all databases from user error usually), and lastly you can always migrate the data to another database if you don't like postgres in the end.
I have no problem representing the positive aspects of postgres. I am also not blind to its shortcomings. We manage one of the larger postgres instances out there -- I know its pros and cons well.
// Theo Schlossnagle // CTO -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/ // OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
