Re: "Too far out of the mainstream"

Em 31/08/2012 16:52, David Johnston escreveu:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-
>> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Andy Yoder
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:25 PM
>> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Cc: Andy Yoder
>> Subject: [GENERAL] "Too far out of the mainstream"
>>
>> 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?"
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your input.
>>
>> Andy Yoder
> Postgres, like the other database products out there, attempts to adhere to
> an independent standard (SQL) as well as provide additional functionality
> deemed useful but that falls outside the standard. Its long existence and
> usage in many different businesses and situations, as well as it regular
> major-release schedule, shows that it is indeed "mainstream". Even in a
> worse-case scenario, were all new development to stop, prior stable releases
> are available and proven in the market and already released under and
> open-source license that cannot be revoked - unlike other licenses in the
> market.
>
> Aside from all that I would politely ask the client's IT group for specific
> and detailed concerns that can be addressed with facts and not via simple
> assertions that it works for other people.
>
> If the client's IT group is going to be supporting the database then
> "mainstream" has a different meaning than if all database management is
> going to done by you and they are worried that PostgreSQL is insecure (which
> is not just a function of the database but your entire infrastructure) or is
> going to be too slow for the amount of data they are going to be accessing.
> Specifics...
>
> David J.
It's an interesting thing.
We have a product that runs over PostgreSQL without any problems (well,
we have few, but most of them can be worked around).
Nevertheless, when we present our product to customers, they won't get
satisfied until we guarantee we can run same product with major paid
versions (Oracle, MS SQL, and so on).
We assert to them that PostgreSQL works as good as any other (paid)
databases, and even better. After that (knowing that they have a
choice), they won't question any more, and they use PostgreSQL without
any concerns.
Seems that people (managers) that don't understand the technical stuff
need to know that they have a fall back to a paid version (the one that
they can blame if something goes wrong).
Thankfully, our product running over PostgreSQL never stoped in 5 years
of development in any of our customers. Now, I cannot tell the same
about MS SQL Server and MySQL, that had several problems regarding
database structure, and DB2 that suffers of constant DBA maintenance for
performance as the application grows too fast.

Regards,

Edson