Re: Opinion for using PostgreSQL for production please

From: Stojan Veselinovski <stojan.veselinovski_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 05:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CALn1tDtgZYF=qUz1uLNM=G75g+yxySYPfOkVpkUVKNs2meBP+A_at_mail.gmail.com>



I've been using it over the past few years. Works well for the most part. The thing that I really miss is AWR and the wait interface of Oracle.

Partitioning is not as elegant but the complex config tasks are relatively simple to set up. Provisioning read replica's in a cloud environment is a few clicks away and there are no big licence fees. User forums are very active and helpful.

I know of a few organisations with Oracle exit strategies and PostgreSQL earmarked as the replacement. Amazon is also pushing this heavily as an Oracle replacement to their customers.

Stojan
www.stojanveselinovski.com/blog

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:53 AM Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, PPAS is an improved product requiring payment.
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco <
> jcdrpllist_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.'
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
>
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Feb 17 2016 - 06:36:12 CET

Original text of this message