> That would be incorrect.
Factually, you are correct that it's incorrect. I'm talking about the
perception.
> How many CIOs check into the PostgreSQL advocacy group, just to pick
> out one article?
Few that I know of, which makes my point stronger and brings us to this:
> instance, you may be able to get some improved reliability, but not in
> the form of specific features (e.g. - ORAC) that 'smell like a
> product.'
So, on one hand you can pay BPOM to Oracle for all the enterpriseyness and
fresh NOS (New Oracle Smell) money can buy. Or...
> In other words, some risks are certain to be retained, and fancy
> DBMS features can't necessarily mitigate them.
...you can pay SSPOM (Some Smaller Pile Of Money) to a PG vendor to harden
PG. You won't get the enterprisey NOS, but the end result will be the
same. The question then becomes, what are the second-level costs? (i.e.,
will high-reliability project X complete just as fast by hardening PG as
it would by using Oracle's built-in features? What are the costs to train
Oracle DBA's on PG - or what are the costs of their downtime while they
learn PG?)
Cheers,
-J
