>> Also comparing Postgres to MYSQL is also pretty funny, since there are
>> instances of MYSQL LOSING databases due to corruption because they do
>> not have PITR and their transaction rollback feature did not work
>> properly last time I checked. This is really a issue of people being
>> close minded to great database software and not being able to sell it
>> to their superiors.
>
> It's not funny at all. Just like comparing PostgreSQL to Apache isn't
> funny (Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in
> the global 2000). The fact that MySQL has lost data is not germane to
This is the point of this thread that I think people are severely missing.
(Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in the
global 2000)
It is also about my point that Theo and I share different markets. In
Theo's world his arguments are 100% correct, imo.
I would garner that less than 1% of the PostgreSQL experts out there can
speak to the global 2000 requirements. The global 2000 includes people
like GM, Wal-Mart and Sony.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/18/06f2000_The-Forbes-2000_Rank.html
These organizations have diverse and extreme requirements that only some
of us have ever even been exposed to.
Case in point, one of my customers recently spoke to me about moving a
critical system to PostgreSQL. This system, if down will cost the
customer several million (that is 7 digits) an hour.
How many on this thread can honestly say that they have a clue what type
of business volume that is?
Sincerely,
Johsua 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/