Re: Oracle2PostgreSQL Migration with PL/pgSQL

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

> "Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in
> news:3e6f40d0$0$22005$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net:
>
> > It may be because I'm just used to the feature, but one example that
> > has already come up is PITR.
>
> [ Just ideas below so I'm sure they're wrong and off the mark ... agree,
> disagree, it's all bubble gum for the brain. :]
>
> Hi Niall!
>
> I don't agree with the 95% replacement number but I do believe that
> there are many small/medium installations that would relish the idea
> of avoiding Oracle's (but really, _any_ DBMS vendor's) support costs
> and use a free system instead; provided that it's stable.
>
> Sybase released, albeit a very old version, 11.0.3 of their RDBMS for
> free; you can develop and release product with this version without
> paying royalties. Later versions of their application don't follow
> this 'pricing' model. <g>
>
> If there was a translator from PL/SQL to T-SQL, I think a lot more
> small-end market share would be moving to ASE. Postgres seems poised
> to be able to at least take some of the lower end market share from
> Oracle. Will they do it? I have no idea. PITR is definitely one
> item that some shops will need.
>
> If memory serves, I don't think mySQL has PITR and there are many
> web applications using mySQL.
>
> Personally, I think porting SQL Server to Linux is what Microsoft
> ought to do. Imagine the dustdevil that would kick up? <g>
>
> Later!
> --
> Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
> http://www.hpdbe.com

I think it more likely people might move from MS Access to PostgreSQL than from Oracle. Simply because you don't buy Oracle unless you need it.

Daniel Morgan Received on Wed Mar 12 2003 - 10:39:19 CST