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

Re: References for PostgreSQL

From: Steve Brett <SBrett(at)e-mis(dot)com>
To: tstuart(at)pyramis(dot)co(dot)uk
Cc: "Pgsql-General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: References for PostgreSQL
Date: 2002-07-19 12:46:36
Message-ID: C05E7DA1218ED411BF8A00105AC95A8E05C05B20@sv-cntrmail.emis.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
i wasn't saying that your question doesn't deserve to be answered but just
because a company uses a product doesn't mean it does so for the best
reasons.

sql server springs to mind where often it might not be the best tool for the
job but companies use it for several other reasons (product tie in / tie in
with other ms software packages or their db admin doesn't know or won't try
anything else)

i use postgres at work and have found that it offers everything i need for
the applications that use it. we used on because it was the best open-source
product available and we had people (3 or 4 of us) that had enough linux
experience and db experience to be able to support it.

the company i work for is a straight MS house and other developement teams
scoff at us for not wanting to use the MS tools we have avaialable.

Steve



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Stuart [mailto:tstuart(at)pyramis(dot)co(dot)uk]
> Sent: 19 July 2002 13:37
> To: 'Steve Brett'
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] References for PostgreSQL
> 
> 
> Other company's usage of a product shows that there is a measure of
> substance behind the stated features and benefits, not just rhetoric.
> 
> The original question is a good one and deserves to be answered.
> 
> Trevor Stuart
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Steve Brett
> Sent: 19 July 2002 13:31
> To: Christian Lübeck; Pgsql-General (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] References for PostgreSQL
> 
> 
> Why would you need other companies to use it if it suits your needs ?
> 
> I would have thought the features and benefits would drive 
> the decision.
> 
> ?
> 
> Steve
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Lübeck [mailto:c(dot)luebeck(at)gmx(dot)de]
> > Sent: 18 July 2002 18:54
> > To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: [GENERAL] References for PostgreSQL
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Just one questions:
> >
> > Our Company is searching for a good SQL-Database, which will
> > be using very
> > extensivly in the future.
> > PostgreSQL really looks good (low/no cost/ many features), 
> but do big
> > companys have this product also on their production servers?
> > Any if yes,
> > which companys?
> >
> > Thanks for help,
> >
> > Christian Lübeck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
> 
> ---------------------------(end of 
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: mallahDate: 2002-07-19 12:46:38
Subject: Re: Long update progress
Previous:From: Jan D'HondtDate: 2002-07-19 12:43:23
Subject: Re: Disabling case sensitivity

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