Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Date
Msg-id 20061013172731.GD28647@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jdrake@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:25:16PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
> > donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.
>
> I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
> name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
> others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)

My point was that how many fortune 500 companies have
mission-critical services that depend on PostgreSQL, especially if
they're public-facing? Sure, some have... many more have not. The few
that have are on the bleeding edge (which isn't so bloody afterall).

In any case, this is rapidly changing. The next few years will certainly
be very interesting. :)
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: USENIX LISA
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle