"Chris Travers" <chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:CAKt_ZfvZfYq_VPYXG3p=fy=s1whcc0p9trxkczfrrsjsqms...@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder <ayo...@airfacts.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I would like the community's input on a topic. The words "too far out of
the mainstream" are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients,
describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in
our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases,
including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases
(think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications
and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from
them and need to address their question: "What makes PostgreSQL no more risky
than any other database?"
It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it technical
risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes out of
business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of what
exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question you aren't
doing yourself any favors.
The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a
conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer to.
You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different
approaches:
1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project
with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate
development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business
applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach
than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the same
db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has to live
with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether 0000-00-00 is
a valid date for error checking purposes.
2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant
number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain registry
comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of development
is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional about change
management.
3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors offering
top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an ability to
just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means support will
continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a very different
thing from single vendor software, where support will continue as long as the
vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it.
Best Wishes,
Chris travers
Not to forget that Skype has used PostrgeSQL from the start... Probably a very
good case study to use that PG is mainstream enough.
Johan Nel
South Africa.
