Christopher Browne writes:
> My would-be wording of:
>
> "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a
> number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with
> products controlled exclusively by a single vendor."
>
> has, amongst its merits, that it states merits of PostgreSQL without
> any need to name the vendors of other databases. There's no need to
> back up grandiose claims about "qualified, dedicated, diverse support
> channels." Indeed, I wouldn't want to say any of that at all. The
> "PHB point" is that the diversity _alleviates risk_.
I totally agree with that reasoning. But these points about PostgreSQL
being open, free, independent, flexible, cool, have already been made,
sorted out, written down, etc. I can send you a flyer with a sentence
like that on it. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep reevaluating these
points, but...
I think the idea of this thread was to accumulate technical points on
particular databases vs. PostgreSQL. This doesn't have to be, and should
not be IMHO, propaganda material, but it should be available as a
reference for people to prepare for tough questions. So it should be
factual.
So, we need people who have some experience using some other database and
make a fair evaluation.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
