Re: Opinion for using PostgreSQL for production please
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:32:59 -0700
Message-ID: <56C3796B.90300_at_evdbt.com>
I've also found their on-demand online educational content convenient for off-hours learning, useful for getting up to speed quickly, and economical enough for out-of-pocket.
On 2/16/16 12:27, David Green wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:mark.powell2_at_hpe.com>>
>> *An:* ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org
>> <mailto: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>
>> [mailto: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 <http://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-lReceived on Tue Feb 16 2016 - 20:32:59 CET