--- On Wed, 1/30/08, Swaminathan Saikumar <swami@giveexam.com> wrote:
> The cons of PostgreSql Hosting
> * Performance considerations: Inserts and Updates into the
> PostgreSql database is much slower compared to MySql. PostgreSql
> hosting thus might slow down the display of the web page online.
" ... might slow down ..." I guess they didn't check to know one way or ther other whether It does slow down a web
page. The real answer depends upon your they kind of uses you have.
> * BSD license issues: Since PostgreSql comes under the
> Berkeley license scheme, this is again considered to be too open.
What does "too open" mean? Is too open a bad thing?
> * Availability of inferior Data Storage mechanism:
> PostgreSql uses Postgres storage system, which is not considered to be transaction sae during PostgreSql hosting.
It seems they misspelled "safe". But in either case they also seemed to have confused MySQL with PostgreSQL on this
point. Being transactionally "safe" is one of PostgreSQL's strongest points.
> * Its not far-flung: While MySql hosting and MSSql hosting have deeply
> penetrated into the market, PostgreSql hosting still remains to be passive in the database hosting market.
My gut says that this is probably true. But there are very good hosting sites that provide PostgreSQL.
> * Non-availability of required assistance for PostgreSQL hosting: Assistance is being provided via mailing lists.
Howeverthere is no guarantee that the issue faced during PostgreSQL hosting would be resolved.
If you have a highly critical application that requires guaranteed assistance you are more than able to purchase it
fromsome top notch consultant companies that support PostgreSQL. Just check out the PostgreSQL home page. So I don't
thisthis point is correct either.
If you don't get too much feed back on this subject, just remember that topics like this come up frequently to the
pointof list member exhaustion. You can find such discussions if you search the list archive.
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
