| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |
| Date: | 2020-06-13 18:46:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20200613184612.GE20552@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 08:53:45PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> I agree these are all technical issues, but nevertheless - "implementation
> details", which DBAs don't care about. What's important from a DBA's
> perspective is not whether WAL is cluster-wide or database-wide, but whether
> it's possible to manage backups/PITR/restores of individual databases in a more
> convenient matter, which other RDBMS-vendors seem to provide.
>
> I love PG, have been using it professionally since 6.5, and our company depends
> on it, but there are things other RDBMS-vendors do better...
The bigger issue is that while we _could_ do this, it would add more
problems and complexity, and ultimately, I think would make the
software less usable overall and would be a net-negative. We know of no
way to do it without a ton of negatives.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-13 18:47:33 | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-06-13 17:58:59 | Re: Fwd: not able to give usage access to public schema |