Re: "Too far out of the mainstream" - Mailing list pgsql-general
| From | Chris Travers |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: "Too far out of the mainstream" |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAKt_ZfvZfYq_VPYXG3p=fy=S1WhCC0P9trXkCZFrrsjsQMSh8w@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | "Too far out of the mainstream" (Andy Yoder <ayoder@airfacts.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: "Too far out of the mainstream"
Re: "Too far out of the mainstream" Re: "Too far out of the mainstream" |
| List | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder <ayoder@airfacts.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I would like the community's input on a topic. The words "too far out of the mainstream" are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: "What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database?"
It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it technical risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes out of business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of what exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question you aren't doing yourself any favors.
The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer to. You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different approaches:
1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the same db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has to live with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether 0000-00-00 is a valid date for error checking purposes.
2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain registry comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of development is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional about change management.
3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors offering top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an ability to just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means support will continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a very different thing from single vendor software, where support will continue as long as the vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it.
Best Wishes,
Chris travers
pgsql-general by date: