Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org,Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Date: 2006-10-13 17:27:31
Message-ID: 20061013172731.GD28647@nasby.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:25:16PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
> > donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.
> 
> I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
> name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
> others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)

My point was that how many fortune 500 companies have 
mission-critical services that depend on PostgreSQL, especially if
they're public-facing? Sure, some have... many more have not. The few
that have are on the bleeding edge (which isn't so bloody afterall).

In any case, this is rapidly changing. The next few years will certainly
be very interesting. :)
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-10-13 17:31:14
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Previous:From: Duncan GarlandDate: 2006-10-13 09:35:31
Subject: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group