Re: PostgreSQL DBA in SPAAAAAAAACE - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: PostgreSQL DBA in SPAAAAAAAACE
Date
Msg-id CAOR=d=242uMcA1hmzmv9qpq=y0+5x=tAqngMApDCoOUMXaLiGw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL DBA in SPAAAAAAAACE  (Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2011, at 18:03, Vincent Veyron wrote:
>
>> Maybe you're right, it must be trap (just kidding, Joe).
>
>
> Perhaps those SQL server and Oracle DBA's were considered to be too expensive to put in such a volatile contraption
andthey opted for the free dude instead. 
>
> But yeah, I'm surprised he/we won too. I consider it a compliment :)

It's a practical issue.  They were afraid an Oracle or SQL Server DBA
would immediately start twiddling all the knobs and buttons to make it
work better.   the pgsql guy will just sit back and watch until he's
needed.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alban Hertroys
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL DBA in SPAAAAAAAACE
Next
From: Chris Travers
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance question: Commit or rollback?