Re: Postgres in government

pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote on 05/19/2005 11:35:07 AM:

> >>> ...We are proposing that Postgres be used for the application
database.
> >>> Not too surprisingly we are being asked for additional
> information because
> >>> Postgres is open source.
> >>>
> > So is the implication that they think open source is a bad thing? I
would
> > think they would question a recommendation for using proprietory
products!
>
> It's all about covering their butts... If they buy SQLServer and it goes

> bad, they can sue Microsoft. Or at least they like to think they can.
>
> If PostgreSQL goes bad, who are they going to sue? No one... which means

> the guy who approved it is the scape goat -- which is why he wants proof
> that others have found it worthy...
>
> Silly, but that's probably what's happening.

Exactly that has happened to me. Indemnification is the term. I was also
told that before using any opensource project I had to locally
configuration control the product and perform a complete review of the
source. I don't have to do that with Oracle because they've got lawyers,
and we've got lawyers, and they know each other's phone numbers. Anybody
have a phone number for PostgreSQL's lawyer? Don't flame me, please, I'm
really kidding about the lawyer thing, but the rest is true.

Rick

>
> -philip
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
your
> joining column's datatypes do not match