Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux]
От | Ken McGlothlen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199807240353.UAA08399@ralf.serv.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux] (Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@serv.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
scrappy@hub.org (The Hermit Hacker) writes: | > A lot of them "look good" at first glance. The problem seems to be that | > the implementations tend to be spotty and incomplete amongst the | > packages I've looked at. None of them are robust or complete enough for | > most commercial use. | | And you've, of course, discussed these failings with the authors of the | software itself? Or did you do like most and just drop the software as being | incomplete? Uh . . . I'm not slighting the authors of the software, nor am I even slighting the software itself. All I'm saying is that, as a consultant, I can't yet recommend any for commercial use, and that hinders the adoption of PostgreSQL by commercial entities. That's all. I didn't say *anything* about whether *I* use them or not. Nor did I say that the authors were unresponsive, or anything of the sort. | We've been going, what, 2 years now? Hey, I freely confess that I'm feeling impatient. :) | [...] if everyone just writes them off, then the author's have no reason, or | desire, to maintain them. Which is exactly what worries me. Businesses hire me, often looking to me to save them money and/or time, and provide process improvement (whether that be new applications, more reliability, whatever). Often, a free Unix variant will serve the purpose they're looking for---file server, print server, mail server, web server, all stable services. But when the question of databases comes up, and they want something as stable and full-featured, I do something that frustrates me: I tell the truth. "Outer joins?" "No." "Replication?" "No." And so on. And that's why I get impatient. PgSQL is *so* *close* to being something I can say, "Look, most of the stuff you *require* in Oracle, you can have for free, and look at some of these other features!" But not yet. | They label themselves an RDBMS, so I personally think that *not* including | them would be frowned upon by those looking at the comparison as being a | slight. Ah. That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. | Have you looked into what it would take to do such? [types in separate files] A little. Scares the heck outta me. :) ---Ken
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: