Re: PostgreSQL advocacy

Jernigan, Kevin wrote:
> On 3/25/16, 4:37 AM, "pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Mark Morgan Lloyd"
<pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.orgon behalf of markMLl.pgsql-general@telemetry.co.uk> wrote: 

>> Just because a corporate has a hundred sites cooperating for inventory
>> management doesn't mean that the canteen menus have to be stored on
>> Oracle RAC :-)
>>
> Right, but often the customer has paid for a site license, in which case the IT department will just keep spinning up
moreOracle (or SQL Server or DB2) databases when requests come in - even if it’s overkill for the proposed use case /
workload,it’s less work if IT only has one database technology to support. 

OTOH, if the license takes the number of CPUs/cores into account then
adding even unsophisticated unrelated databases will, eventually, cost.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]