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 [Quoted] you ... I don't carry whether I work in Oracle, or mySQL, or DB2, or Pascal. I [Quoted] work to support my family and put food on the table. So lets look at this from [Quoted] the totally self-serving prospect of my ability to accomplish my goals rather [Quoted] than the goals of some marketing dweeb.

How much money per hour can you get and how many jobs are available at dice.com [Quoted] 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 - 17:35:04 CET