Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

> That would be incorrect.

Factually, you are correct that it's incorrect.  I'm talking about the
perception.

> How many CIOs check into the PostgreSQL advocacy group, just to pick
> out one article?

Few that I know of, which makes my point stronger and brings us to this:

>  instance, you may be able to get some improved reliability, but not in
>  the form of specific features (e.g. - ORAC) that 'smell like a
>  product.'

So, on one hand you can pay BPOM to Oracle for all the enterpriseyness and
fresh NOS (New Oracle Smell) money can buy.  Or...

>  In other words, some risks are certain to be retained, and fancy
>  DBMS features can't necessarily mitigate them.

...you can pay SSPOM (Some Smaller Pile Of Money) to a PG vendor to harden
PG.  You won't get the enterprisey NOS, but the end result will be the
same.  The question then becomes, what are the second-level costs?  (i.e.,
will high-reliability project X complete just as fast by hardening PG as
it would by using Oracle's built-in features?  What are the costs to train
Oracle DBA's on PG - or what are the costs of their downtime while they
learn PG?)

Cheers,
-J