On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Joshua Kramer
<josh@globalherald.net> wrote:
In this case it was all about momentum. We got that momentum because we
You mention executive declaring a migration from PostgreSQL to MS-SQL.
epending on the project that could either cost a couple man weeks or a
Actually, this process usually does not manifest itself as an order to "Migrate from PG to MS". Instead, it goes something like this. Somebody in the company sees an opportunity to increase efficiency or save money by using some application that runs on only one or two database engines (usually some combination of My or Postgres). This person does a cost/benefit analysis and presents the findings. The suits say, "hey that's great, we'll approve it if you can get it running on MS-SQL or Oracle". To be fair, there is value in only having one or two in-house database engines (usually MS-SQL and Oracle), but after you get so many of these cost-saving "could have done's" that value is eroded.
Having said that... if I remember correctly, somewhere xTuple claimed having at least one Fortune 1000 company as a client. xTuple (the ERP system) is based on PostgreSQL, so there is definitely some Postgres movement for mission-critical loads in Fortune land.
I am enlightened.
I assume you only mean Fortune 1000 vanilla PostgreSQL. If you count extensions then we've probably got more than ten and less than one hundred of them.