Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n82gW-0004XK-5h for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:10:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n82gV-0003cn-2P for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:10:43 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n82gU-0003cd-Nz for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:10:42 +0000 Received: from hermes.gatewaynet.com ([193.92.121.98]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n82gN-0005el-Ui for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:10:41 +0000 Received: from smadev.internal.net (pc131.internal.net [10.9.200.131]) by hermes.gatewaynet.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8+deb9u1) with ESMTPS id 20DGAS9c016411 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:10:33 +0200 Received: from smadev.internal.net (smadev [10.9.200.131]) by smadev.internal.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 20DGASAp098724 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:10:28 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com) Subject: Re: New Oracle system in our house, migration chances To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org References: <5387d1e8-a7d4-f568-fef1-30489fe93bba@matrix.gatewaynet.com> <20220113141321.qdas6evcuc5vvfvp@jrouhaud> <87b3dd77-f6c8-1e0c-fcc8-2b2aabefb72b@gmx.net> <28f5dfe5-fdf6-5d25-8fbf-77075a55a28c@matrix.gatewaynet.com> <8203eed5-b47c-02d0-5d88-09b71d7241ac@matrix.gatewaynet.com> From: Achilleas Mantzios Message-ID: <92aef723-b446-01c1-4148-c573beba84f0@matrix.gatewaynet.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:10:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8203eed5-b47c-02d0-5d88-09b71d7241ac@matrix.gatewaynet.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4025688F88A172F65FA063BA" Content-Language: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at hermes X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-38.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DYN_HAM_COORD, DYN_HAM_IT,DYN_HAM_IT_PARTNERS,DYN_HAM_NAUTICAL,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hermes.gatewaynet.com List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4025688F88A172F65FA063BA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 13/1/22 6:04 μ.μ., Achilleas Mantzios wrote: > On 13/1/22 5:02 μ.μ., Alicja Kucharczyk wrote: >> czw., 13 sty 2022 o 15:54 Achilleas Mantzios > napisał(a): >> >> On 13/1/22 4:51 μ.μ., Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> > Julien Rouhaud schrieb am 13.01.2022 um 15:13: >> >> I would go with option A if possible.  If you want to get an idea of how >> >> complicated a migration would be, ora2pg does have a migration cost assessment >> >> report [1].  It can even check the queries if you have the audit trail enabled >> >> on your oracle database (if that existed in that version). >> >> >> > I second this. Option A) is much cleaner. In my experience compatibility layers >> > that promise that "System A" behaves exactly like "System B" also introduce >> > a lot of additional problems. And if something goes wrong, you can never be sure >> > which part causes the problem. >> Thanks, of course I agree with the last sentence. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Achilleas Mantzios >> DBA, Analyst, IT Lead >> IT DEPT >> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt >> >> >> >> just to be clear is it an ISV or in-house built system? Because I see two different answers ... > > in-house, and when not in house source is available, can you pls show me where I wrote a conflicting answer? to be more clear, they forked the initially ISV 20 years ago, so now there is effectively only in-house. > > -- > Achilleas Mantzios > DBA, Analyst, IT Lead > IT DEPT > Dynacom Tankers Mgmt -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt --------------4025688F88A172F65FA063BA Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 13/1/22 6:04 μ.μ., Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
On 13/1/22 5:02 μ.μ., Alicja Kucharczyk wrote:
czw., 13 sty 2022 o 15:54 Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> napisał(a):
On 13/1/22 4:51 μ.μ., Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud schrieb am 13.01.2022 um 15:13:
>> I would go with option A if possible.  If you want to get an idea of how
>> complicated a migration would be, ora2pg does have a migration cost assessment
>> report [1].  It can even check the queries if you have the audit trail enabled
>> on your oracle database (if that existed in that version).
>>
> I second this. Option A) is much cleaner. In my experience compatibility layers
> that promise that "System A" behaves exactly like "System B" also introduce
> a lot of additional problems. And if something goes wrong, you can never be sure
> which part causes the problem.
Thanks, of course I agree with the last sentence.
>
>
>


--
Achilleas Mantzios
DBA, Analyst, IT Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt



just to be clear is it an ISV or in-house built system? Because I see two different answers ... 

in-house, and when not in house source is available, can you pls show me where I wrote a conflicting answer?
to be more clear, they forked the initially ISV 20 years ago, so now there is effectively only in-house.

-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
DBA, Analyst, IT Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt


-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
DBA, Analyst, IT Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
--------------4025688F88A172F65FA063BA--