Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Well, that is hardly surprising. What exactly is your point?
>>
>> If you want to write portable software, you usually stay with generally
>> available, standardized features or API's, be it "database independent",
>> "platform independent", you name it. You certainly don't go for
>> user-defined types. I really think all the nice features and
>> capabilities of PostgreSQL are great, but I would never, ever start
>> using any of them extensively in a project that might have to run on
>> another database. Ever heard of vendor lock-in and "embrace and expand"?
>
> Bah! Ever heard of crappy software because of database independence?

No, actually not. I certainly heard about buggy, bad- performing
software and about software not fitting its goal, but that is mostly due
to other reasons than database independence.

I know a lot of crappy, database dependent applications.

> I have yet to see a good application that supports "database
independence".

If you are talking about high- end applications (big databases with lot
of transactions), you're of course right. However, there are a lot of
applications with small or medium sized databases and not so many
transactions, where you don't need to get the best out of your RDBMS for
decent performance.

With a good design and some expierience in portability in general, you
will be able to write a good, "quite" database independent application,
supporting some of more standardized RDBMS's.

Bye
Tim