Re: Opinion for using PostgreSQL for production please
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:45:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGYrQyvO+-YK3UxjuxVoXMSoY8g4f=9GWVLxe0RrKdc1o_Xi7A_at_mail.gmail.com>
David one question please,
advanced server, is an improved postgress product, that requires payment and has support?
I tried to read, but is not very clear.
http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/products/postgres-plus-advanced-server
Thank you :)
2016-02-16 15:27 GMT-04:00 David Green <thump_at_cosmiccooler.org>:
> You might find this company interesting:
>
> http://www.enterprisedb.com/
>
> I worked with them a lot years ago on product development.
>
> Thanks
> David
>
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting. I have been looking at PostgreSQL also. I was looking at
> replication from Oracle to PostgreSQL, this is a blog I wrote for my
> current employer on my proof of concept.
>
> http://houseofbrick.com/oracle-to-postgressql-part-1/
> http://houseofbrick.com/oracle-to-postgresql-part-2/
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM, "Martin Preiß" <mtnpreiss_at_gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>> just an addition regarding the necessary space reorganization in
>> postgres: the rdbms uses a multiversioning mechanism that stores different
>> historic versions of a row in the heap table structure - and has to keep
>> them available until the interested transactions are closed. As a result
>> frequent physical reorganizations are necessary and they are done by the
>> VACUUM command (or the auto_vacuum daemon):
>> https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/postgresql-concurrency. That's
>> certainly not as sophisticated as Oracles undo treatment - but it works
>> (and has been around much longer than a sound MVCC in SQL Server for
>> example).
>>
>> Having worked with postgres for some years (though much shorter and less
>> intensive than with Oracle) I would say that it deserves the good
>> reputation. The rdbms is very robust, shows a solid performance and
>> conatins lots of features.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Martin Preiss
>>
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Februar 2016 um 17:07 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Powell, Mark" <mark.powell2_at_hpe.com>
>> *An:* ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
>> *Betreff:* RE: Opinion for using PostgreSQL for production please
>>
>> >> Maybe I'm wrong but I remember that happened with mysql before Oracle
>> bought it. It was free and one day you had to pay for it. <<
>>
>>
>>
>> As far back as I can remember MySQL required a license for legal
>> commercial use. It was only free for personal use if you read the
>> license. The commercial license however was pretty cheap. I think it was
>> a $500 flat fee.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have never used PostgreSQL but I have looked into it in the past. The
>> product has a pretty good reputation. When I looked at it (years ago) I
>> remember seeing one major drawback which had to do with how delete
>> operations were handled. I cannot remember the details and it may have
>> only applied to the index entries but rows were only logically deleted and
>> you had to run maintenance to physically remove the data and make space
>> available for reuse. This is likely no longer true.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:37 AM
>> *To:* ORACLE-L
>> *Subject:* Re: Opinion for using PostgreSQL for production please
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the first problem is if it is going to become suddenly
>> commercial, and that will be the same than equal for that is better to stay
>> in Oracle,
>> Maybe I'm wrong but I remember that happened with mysql before Oracle
>> bought it. It was free and one day you had to pay for it.
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/faq/
>> Q: What company owns PostgreSQL?
>> A: None. We are an unincorporated association of volunteers and companies
>> who share code under the PostgreSQL License. The PostgreSQL project
>> involves a couple dozen companies who either support PostgreSQL
>> contributors or directly contribute corporate projects to our repository.
>> Some of our major corporate sponsors are on the sponsors page, and there
>> are many more companies who contribute to the project in other ways.
>> >I don't know if this will guarantee this will be always free, but at
>> least this reduces the opssibility it becomes a commercial application, and
>> will be free more time.
>>
>> Here is a quote about gardner and postgresql
>> and I think this one of the business that offers support to postgresql
>>
>> http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/products/postgres-plus-advanced-server
>>
>>
>> http://www.briefingsdirectblog.com/2009/06/postgresql-delivers-alternative-for.html
>> Potential MySQL customers who are wary of the database's future under
>> Oracle stewardship have a possible alternative in Postgres Plus, an open
>> source alternative from EnterpriseDB, says that company’s CEO, Ed Boyajian.
>> >I think it touches the problem that open sources database can become
>> commercial database.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-16 9:17 GMT-04:00 Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco <jcdrpllist_at_gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> Hello, please can some one share experience on postgres sql :)
>>
>>
>> Now standard one has died and customers has to move to standard, I am
>> curious about postgresql, specially afters it was recommended.
>>
>>
>> about any hidden and misterious detail, for small business
>>
>>
>> 1. Customers
>>
>> I understand they can pay support, so they can perceive as something
>> serious for their companies.
>>
>>
>> 2. Development
>>
>> I had seen is strong enough
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. vs Oracle standard edition
>>
>> I don't think there is too much to compare with enterprise, but maybe
>> with standard
>>
>> Thank you very much for any comment :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
>
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Feb 16 2016 - 22:45:09 CET