> What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers
> to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? Most
> buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because that's all they know or
> merely for the fact that money is not an issue. Companies may also choose
> to go with the bigger name RDBMS because there is also a readily available
> supply of DBAs that can support these systems. If a DBA was to leave a
> company, then downtime would be minimal.
I think a lot of the PostgreSQL installations in use were installed by people
already convinced of it's ability. I think, in general, it's hard to make
people comfortable with a decision like that when they don't take the time to
understand the situation more fully. I think the managers' responses are
mostly based on an unwillingness to investigate for themselves, which cause
the discomfort.
That said, I think compelling case studies are probably the best way to go.
Affilias manages the .info and .org registries with postgres, and I'm sure
you can find others. Keep in mind that many companies aren't necessarily
against the idea of open source software (consider Apache, Linux, *BSD, and
others), but rather see some *very* compelling case studies from the likes of
Oracle/DB2.
The other way might be to install it on a development server of some kind, and
show that it's able to handle the application better than what they've
already got. In many cases, I'm sure you'll find postgres a little speedier
or more flexible than other DBMSs for your specific applications, and that
should be easy enough to prove. And after all, if you can't prove that, maybe
postgres isn't the best (although it may certainly still have some powerful
advantages).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
