Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:14AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:25:16PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> >>> The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
> >>> donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.
> >> I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
> >> name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
> >> others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)
> >
> > My point was that how many fortune 500 companies have
> > mission-critical services that depend on PostgreSQL, especially if
> > they're public-facing? Sure, some have... many more have not. The few
> > that have are on the bleeding edge (which isn't so bloody afterall).
>
> I find that the fortune 500 companies that are technical in nature are
> already running PostgreSQL. Those that are of a different nature likely
> aren't.

"running PostgreSQL" != "running mission-critical public services on
PostgreSQL". :)

AFAIK every large customer we've talked to is "running" MySQL... for
internal apps that aren't mission-critical.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)