Re: Oracle2PostgreSQL Migration with PL/pgSQL

With apologies ...

Justin Clift wrote:

> DA Morgan wrote:
> > Guido Stepken wrote:
> <snip>
> > Apparently copying the design of the Oracle counts as doing something not
> > done by "traditional" database systems. Nothing like marketing folks to lack
> > in integrity. If Oracle isn't a "traditional" database system ... I'd like
> > to know what is.
>
> Hey, not fair! Don't put us in the same box as *Oracle's* marketing
> department.
>
> As you quoted, it says "superior to most commercial database systems".
> ^^^^
>
> The "most" word is kind of important to the sentence here. :)

Weasel. Attorney. Marketer. ;-)

> Both PostgreSQL and Oracle use MVCC. Don't think other commercial
> systems have moved to an MVCC based approach yet (if ever). From
> memory, other Open Source databases (FireBird) also use an MVCC based
> approach now too.
>
> > The day PostgreSQL and Oracle killer? I'd check the label on the
> > medication. ;-)
>
> As always, it's best to correctly choose the product to suit the need.
> There are places where PostgreSQL is faster and/or scales better on a
> single server, and there are instead places where PITR is needed thus
> PostgreSQL isn't yet an option.

Please document where PostgreSQL is faster and/or scales better on a single server.

> > Not that it is a bad product. But anytime they get in Larry or Bill's way
> > ... they'll do to them what was done to Fox and Informix.
>
> Sure. The Oracle marketing teams will use their um... high-integrity
> tactics... to encourage people to move to Oracle from the alternatives.
>
> Not sure how Oracle's marketing teams are going to work against a
> product based on a no-profit-needed-in-order-to-thrive business model
> though. Pretty sure we're going to find out though in the next few years.
>
> Regards and best wishes,
>
> Justin Clift

Which part of buy it ... and let it die of bengin neglect didn't come through clearly from
the examples? People aren't encouraged to move from Fox to Access. Fox is just about invisible so the outcome is obvious.

Daniel Morgan Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 10:07:22 CST