Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD?
Date: 2004-07-13 20:01:13
Message-ID: 1089748873.3354.47.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
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):
> 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

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2004-07-13 21:15:07
Subject: Re: the PostgreSQL Elephant
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-07-13 19:59:24
Subject: Re: the PostgreSQL Elephant

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group