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

Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Date: 2006-10-12 03:24:50
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 21:36, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 08:18:18PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 October 2006 12:41, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > Press coverage, an interview with Neil Matthew and Richard Stones.
> > > >
> > > >,289483,sid39_gci1222466,
> > > >00.h tml
> > >
> > > With friends like these...
> > >
> > > "In an emergency, having companies the size of Microsoft or Oracle
> > > to call on may significantly mitigate that risk."
> > >
> > > My experiences calling these outfits in an emergency have been a
> > > lot less than uniformly good, even with their top-cost levels of
> > > support.  Blaming one of these outfits may save some manager's
> > > job, but that's not the same as actually having the emergency
> > > resolved promptly, or better still, not having it happen at all.
> > >
> > > "First, the ability to write functions and stored procedures is
> > > somewhat more limited than you would get with Oracle's PL/SQL or
> > > Sybase's T-SQL."
> > >
> > > I don't know which languages they were looking at, but it's hard
> > > to imagine how PL/SQL or T-SQL outdid PL/Perl, PL/PythonU,
> > > PL/Ruby, PL/sh, etc. from a flexibility perspective.
> >
> > I'm not sure why people in this community are so quick to label
> > anyone who is less than glowing about postgresql as "the enemy", but
> > it's really annoying.
> I didn't do that.  I called them friends, if not very clueful ones.

Is that how you treat all your "friends" ?

> > Maybe these guys were thinking about things like the ability to
> > return multiple resultsets and/or the ability to do multiple
> > transactions within a stored procedure;
> Then they should have mentioned it.  PostgreSQL has real issues, and
> if they'd mentioned any one of these, it would have been reasonable.
> Instead, these guys chose to spread the FUD around and call PostgreSQL
> a toy.

Now who is spreading FUD? Show me where they said PostgreSQL was a toy?

> > both of which are functionality that Oracle and SQL Server devotee's
> > have been enjoying for years... (for the curious, see relevant
> > threads in the -hackers archives about implementation proposals to
> > add these features that as of yet have not gotten off the ground)
> Part of why they haven't gotten off the ground is that it's been
> possible for at least 3 years to return SETOF REFCURSOR from
> functions, and there's your multiple result sets :)  
> As far as 
> multiple transactions, we have had SAVEPOINTs for quite awhile and
> it's possible to do 'autonomous transactions' through untrusted PLs.

You're starting to sound more like those database guys who thought FK's were 
unneccessary and transactions were overrated every day... I just can't decide 
if it's due to zealotry or a lack of experience with other systems.

> I agree that none of what I just mentioned is ideal, but it means that
> the capability is there, and so a lot of people who work on internals
> are faced with a choice:  Make existing functionality prettier, or do
> things that can't currently be done.  If we had a bunch more people on
> salary doing this, as I hope we will soon, that choice won't be as
> stark.

I'm not questioning the choices the hackers have made, I'm questioning the 
tactic of trashing people who are promoting postgresql just because they 
don't bath in the same flavor of kool-aid as you. 

You yourself just said "I agree that none of what I just mentioned is ideal", 
(which as someone who has actually worked on systems using all of your above 
methods I'd say is being generous) but somehow when they say that PostgreSQL 
is "somewhat more limited"  your reaction is a backhanded email to the 
advocacy group.  I'd prefer people recognize the high points of the article 
and then educate themselves on why two postgresql supporters might question 
postgresql's use in certain areas so that we know better how to tackle those 
problems both in code and from an advocacy point of view.    

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-10-12 05:55:33
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2006-10-12 02:18:54
Subject: Re: pl/Perl

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