Chris Browne wrote:
> josh@globalherald.net (Joshua_Kramer) writes:
>>> The most important point is that third one, I think:
>>> "any application where reliability requirements do not warrant
>>> spending $1M to make it more reliable"
>>>
>>> Adopting ORAC and/or other HA technologies makes it necessary to
>>> spend a Big Pile Of Money, on hardware and the humans to administer
>>> it.
>> If I were CIO that did not follow the Postgres groups regularly, I
>> would take that to mean that Oracle is automatically more reliable
>> than PG because you can spend a BPOM to make it so.
>
> That would be incorrect.
>
> In cases where you *do not* spend the BPOM, there is not any
> particular evidence available to indicate that Oracle is, in any
> interesting way, more reliable than PostgreSQL.
No but there is perception which is quite a bit more powerful.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
