Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ...

At 08:51 PM 22-11-1999 -0600, davidb(at)vectormath(dot)com wrote:
>tracking database). Soooo, for my part, I now put my faith in a database
>whose proponents do not face financial ruin if they tell you the truth. I
>much
>prefer a "Not yet implemented" message from the database, or a "this is
>still a little wonky" message from the developer, I much prefer that rather
>than the confident assurances you receive from Microsoft and Oracle.
>Especially when you pass on those confident assurances to your client and
>wind up looking like an ass.

Yeah!

I want truths. I'm a technical guy, I didn't get good technical knowledge
by believing lies and fuzzy stuff.

Thing is, Postgres could go various ways depending on the goals.

If the priorities include stability and reliability, that's what you get.
If the priorities are features at any cost, you get junk.

Though Open Source projects are less susceptible to featuritis, they're far
from immune. Trouble is many PHBs only compare stuff feature by brochure
feature.

Hmm, I must remember to put in "Maximum of one restart/reboot per year
subject to clause X" in tender specs.

Cheerio,

Link.