> Over the last 4-6 weeks, however, several potential clients
> questioning my choice of PostgreSQL, saying that it has a reputation
> for instability. These comments didn't come from people who are
> against using open-source software; my choice of Linux, Apache,
> mod_perl, Zope, or OpenACS (depending on the project) was generally
> applauded.
From what I've read, I've inferred that long, long ago, very early
versions of PG weren't all that great - but I have no personal experience
with them, so I can neither confirm nor deny that. What I CAN tell you,
though, is this:
The amount of idiotic statements that I've heard about PostgreSQL is
amazing. Nearly all of it has come from "non-technical techies". You
know, the people who sell computers, deal with computer-related
investments, manage technically-competant people, but aren't actually
capable of doing anything useful with a computer themselves.
I've had to deal with a (seemingly) innumerable host of these kinds of
people. For some, a simple review of the performance, scalability, and
rock-solid reliability of our PG servers is enough. For others, it's not,
and they really seem bent on the idea of us using something different. My
response to them is "Sure, we'll do it. And you'll only have to fork over
a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe half a million, to cover the
licensing fees and hardware upgrades to get us to the level we're at right
now." Somehow, that seems to help them understand a little more
clearly...
steve