Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD?

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 06:36, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > I'm also pretty sure that they laid off their PostgreSQL support staff
> > *before* the switchover to DB2; as you can imagine, they ran into some
> > problems in the interval.
> >
> > Merlin, if you can actually provide a link, I'm sure that Tim P. would
> be
> > happy to give us a statement refuting IBM's interpretation.
>
> My memory failed me. Here is the page I was thinking about (from his
> famous 2 part article comparing mysql and pg):
> http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=4
>
> He never claimed that postgres was unstable, only that recovery was
> nasty when it did go down (which was true in the 6.5 - 7.0 days). In
> fact, he goes on to say that postgres was quite reliable. It could be
> extracted from his writings that there were crashes, however. This
> could be exploited in the usual nasty FUD way.
>
> It would be nice to see some uptime statistics from him IMO. Not really
> useful in a modern sense because it predates WAL, but it least to
> contrast what IBM is talking about...

Tim wrote a followup article to that one, where he was testing the 7.1
series, it is interesting to see how much improvement he got from
upgrading:

http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?aid=151