http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339
The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and
it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on
what people find missing from postgres to adopt it.
Just to summarize some of the answers:
* major PITA to upgrade between major versions;
* executing a single query on multiple cpus/cores;
* no direct table cache control;
* accent-insensitive text comparisons;
* fast select count(*);
Wrong assumptions (but people seem to be sure it's like this):
* no hotbackup except pg_dump (wrong: there are in fact a few different
ways to do that);
* pg_dump the only way to cleanly upgrade (wrong: slony is good for
that);
* missing 2 phase commit (wrong: it is now implemented);
* inadequate performance with really large databases (wrong: there are
known examples of really large postgres DBs);
There are other claims like (quoting): "RAC, enterprise backup
capabilities, database on raw partition, compatibility with enterprise
storage (SAN,...)" which I don't know if there are adequate solutions
for postgres or not.
Cheers,
Csaba.
