Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment

Ron wrote:

> On 6/2/20 1:56 PM, Tim Clarke wrote:
> > On 02/06/2020 19:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > But require a new port, and Enterprises have Processes that must be followed.
> > > Sure they do. Automate them.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stephen
> >
> > +1 for automation, isoX != slow
> It is when FW rules must be manually approved (and they do review them all),
> then the TASK is converted to a CHANGE and that goes before a CAB meeting.
>
> That's all bypassed with SQL Server and Oracle, though.

Presumably, these processes have to be followed for SQL
Server and Oracle at least once too. If someone with
the same process requirements wanted to use Postgresql
instead, and they knew that they might need multiple
ports, presumably the process could be followed once
for a (possibly pre-allocated) set of ports. It doesn't
have to be any less efficient. Same number of meetings,
just in relation to a different number of ports. The
only problem would be when the processes were followed
for a single port before it was realised that more
ports would be needed later. Then the process would
have to be followed twice, once for the first port, and
once again for all the other ports that might become
necessary.

cheers,
raf