Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652EF9FA147 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:49:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13785-08 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:49:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-254.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1699FB7E6 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:49:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5JGnKH3031102; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:49:21 -0700 Message-ID: <46780955.5000705@commandprompt.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:50:29 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Browne CC: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle References: <36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com> <4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org> <36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com> <4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com> <115F286D-0396-44DB-8E3B-8801B0924D66@indiana.edu> <60ps3sdpxl.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <603b0odl5i.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> In-Reply-To: <603b0odl5i.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.5, clamav-milter version 0.88.5 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/217 X-Sequence-Number: 11266 Chris Browne wrote: > josh@globalherald.net (Joshua_Kramer) writes: >>> The most important point is that third one, I think: >>> "any application where reliability requirements do not warrant >>> spending $1M to make it more reliable" >>> >>> Adopting ORAC and/or other HA technologies makes it necessary to >>> spend a Big Pile Of Money, on hardware and the humans to administer >>> it. >> If I were CIO that did not follow the Postgres groups regularly, I >> would take that to mean that Oracle is automatically more reliable >> than PG because you can spend a BPOM to make it so. > > That would be incorrect. > > In cases where you *do not* spend the BPOM, there is not any > particular evidence available to indicate that Oracle is, in any > interesting way, more reliable than PostgreSQL. No but there is perception which is quite a bit more powerful. Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/