On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:
> In this case it was all about momentum. We got that momentum because we
>> You mention executive declaring a migration from PostgreSQL to MS-SQL.
>> epending on the project that could either cost a couple man weeks or a
> Actually, this process usually does not manifest itself as an order to
> "Migrate from PG to MS". Instead, it goes something like this. Somebody in
> the company sees an opportunity to increase efficiency or save money by
> using some application that runs on only one or two database engines
> (usually some combination of My or Postgres). This person does a
> cost/benefit analysis and presents the findings. The suits say, "hey that's
> great, we'll approve it if you can get it running on MS-SQL or Oracle". To
> be fair, there is value in only having one or two in-house database engines
> (usually MS-SQL and Oracle), but after you get so many of these cost-saving
> "could have done's" that value is eroded.
> Having said that... if I remember correctly, somewhere xTuple claimed
> having at least one Fortune 1000 company as a client. xTuple (the ERP
> system) is based on PostgreSQL, so there is definitely some Postgres
> movement for mission-critical loads in Fortune land.
I am enlightened.
I assume you only mean Fortune 1000 vanilla PostgreSQL. If you count
extensions then we've probably got more than ten and less than one hundred
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Joshua Kramer||Date: 2010-02-03 19:07:41|
|Subject: Re: Wanted: new project slogan|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-02-03 18:44:29|
|Subject: Re: Merchandising WAS: A gentle plea|