Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

On 2004-04-02, Bricklen <bricklen-rem_at_yahoo.comz> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
><snip>
>>
>> The lack of replication, clustering, hot backups & point in time
>> recovery make Postgres a toy. It's simply not robust enough for
>> critical deployments.
>>
>>
>>>is rather more than a "toy" these days. You talk of slander yet seem
>>>to be second to none in the bias department.
>>
>>
>> Postgres is suitable if your data is completely disposable.
>>
>>
> One benefit of postgresql that I've noticed is that is it remarkably
> easy to write code to handle the backup and recovery of the db
> automatically. We had a remote client where we had to set up such a
> process and it worked fine. To back up pg, you just dump the db to a
> file, then only a few simple steps are needed to recreate the whole
> works automagically.

This is pretty much what you get with Oracle export/import. It also has the same limitations: transactions that occur between backups are completely unrecoverable.

>
> disclaimer: pg is nowhere near Oracle in functionality, but it does have
> it's uses for certain things.

Like I said, Postgres only works if the data in your RDBMS can be treated as completely disposable. Otherwise, you're heading for a heartache.

-- 
The public has a right to free music. It's part of the bargain that
was originally made with musicians and publishers. It's time that the   |||
debate was shifted to reflect that. Robber Barons and their Toadies    / | \
are distracting us from the original facts of the situation.