On Friday 16. October 2009, Greg Smith wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Thom Brown wrote:
>> This made me laugh too: "PostgreSQL: An offering that lags in
>> enterprise database features and functionality...
>
>I hate to break it to you, but by the criteria listed for what's an
>"enterprise" database:
>
>"support for application development, high availability, disaster
>recovery, security, high performance, a wide range of data types, and
>backup and recovery."
>
>And later:
>
>"support for high availability, security, performance, manageability,
> and integration with applications."
>
>PostgreSQL *is* weak.
Greg, thank you for what I think is a very accurate analysis on what's
the trouble with PostgreSQL from a PHB point of view. I myself am a
all-out geek, and I'm extremely satisfied with Pg just the way it is.
But I totally see your points.
So, I think that the main question now, in order to take
PostgreSQL «mainstream», is to add the features the PHBs want. That is,
_if_ it is regarded, by the community, as a valid goal for PostgreSQL
to gain PHB cred.
What can be done to get Pg this kind of cred? Can developers be
attracted who have a hunch about how to make PostgreSQL a little more
streamlined from that angle? Or should the community as a whole,
perhaps, aim for more general «end user friendliness»?
Or, are we satisfied with keeping Pg as a fringe product, made by and
for geeks?
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
Me And My Database: http://solumslekt.org/blog/