On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:25:13PM -0500, Andy Yoder wrote:
>
>> 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?"
>
> This canard has been going around for years. Anyone who thinks that
> MySQL, with its sketchy guarantees of data integrity and persistence,
> is mainstream-acceptable but Postgres isn't because they haven't read
> about it in InfoWorld (or wherever they get their news) is just
> believing too much of whatever marketing material their vendors are
> shoveling at them.
>
> A response to this sort of question from the .org TLD redelegation is
> still available online:
> http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13TheInternetSocietyISOC.
> The details in that answer are all obsolete, of course, since it's
> from several years (and Postgres versions) ago, but you can use it as
> a cheat sheet in formulating your answer. For what it's worth, .org
> was redelegated from Verisign to Public Interest Registry, and the
> resulting system used PostgreSQL (instead of Oracle).
One of the most fascinating things to come out of the whole Afilias
winning the right to host the .org and .info domains was Oracle's PR
response to the suggestion of using postgresql. Wish I could find it.
Andrew might have it archived somewhere. But the Oracle PR flak
basically outright lied about PostgreSQL, saying it didn't support
transactions. This bald faced lie might be understandable if
transactions were bolted onto PostgreSQL at some late date after its
inception, but transactions were pretty much built in from the
beginning. I.e. Oracle will say what they have to to win, and if that
means looking you in the face and lying about the competition, they
won't hesitate to do it.
