Re: Oracle2PostgreSQL Migration with PL/pgSQL

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > > [...] and there are instead places where PITR is needed
> > > thus PostgreSQL isn't yet an option.
> >
> > Ok, from my (very limited) experience I would agree that Oracle
> > provides abundantly in the "Pain In The Rectum" department, but why
> > would you actually *want* that?
>
> Heaps of low-end Oracle users are switching to PostgreSQL all the time.
> They complained that the admin overhead for PostgreSQL was far too low.
> They missed having to create rollback segments and having queries fail when
> there wasn't enough segments, that they had to run in special partitions
> etc. Basically, it wasn't painful enough.
>
> Hence, we will be adding extra Pain In The Rectum support in 7.4 :)
>
> Chris

BTW: Anyone paying attention isn't creating rollback segments in Oracle 9i either.

Lets try a different tack on what is obviously a matter of religious faith for you ... I don't carry whether I work in Oracle, or mySQL, or DB2, or Pascal. I work to support my family and put food on the table. So lets look at this from the totally self-serving prospect of my ability to accomplish my goals rather than the goals of some marketing dweeb.

How much money per hour can you get and how many jobs are available at dice.com for PostgreSQL vs. Oracle?

Oracle 3,539 ... PostgreSQL 2

Well maybe dice.com isn't representative ... I'll try monster.com

Oracle (more than 5000) ... PostgreSQL 10

Enjoy your marginal employment.

"Heaps of low-end Oracle users are switching to PostgreSQL all the time.". That means more than two?
Larry probably can't sleep at night.

Daniel Morgan Received on Tue Mar 11 2003 - 10:35:04 CST