Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD?
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1089748873.3354.47.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD? ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 06:36, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > I'm also pretty sure that they laid off their PostgreSQL support staff > > *before* the switchover to DB2; as you can imagine, they ran into some > > problems in the interval. > > > > Merlin, if you can actually provide a link, I'm sure that Tim P. would > be > > happy to give us a statement refuting IBM's interpretation. > > My memory failed me. Here is the page I was thinking about (from his > famous 2 part article comparing mysql and pg): > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=4 > > He never claimed that postgres was unstable, only that recovery was > nasty when it did go down (which was true in the 6.5 - 7.0 days). In > fact, he goes on to say that postgres was quite reliable. It could be > extracted from his writings that there were crashes, however. This > could be exploited in the usual nasty FUD way. > > It would be nice to see some uptime statistics from him IMO. Not really > useful in a modern sense because it predates WAL, but it least to > contrast what IBM is talking about... Tim wrote a followup article to that one, where he was testing the 7.1 series, it is interesting to see how much improvement he got from upgrading: http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?aid=151
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: