Re: PostgreSQL alternative to "Oracle Real Application

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb(at)eskimo(dot)com>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL alternative to "Oracle Real Application
Date: 2003-06-18 19:00:48
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0306181259040.5406-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:

> > What (exact, if possible) version of Oracle?
>
> My guess would be 8, but I'm not positive. I'm pretty sure they hadn't
> upgraded to 9 yet, and they may have been back as far as 7 - yes, I'm
> aware that's a pretty wide window. Anyway, they were using an
> Oracle/Weblogic combo, and it didn't work as smoothly as they wanted it
> to :)
>
> Anyway, I know this discussion was on Oracle 9, but I just wanted to throw
> out that the vendors use hype more than reality, and the chances that they
> have something that is terribly better than what you could cook up at home
> is remote. That's _why_ they don't publish the details. If you knew the
> details, you wouldn't be nearly as excited.

Which feeds back to my earlier point that if the vendor won't setup a test
bench system for you to test on, be extra suspicious of their promises.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-06-18 19:01:17 Re: Building pgeasy on HP-UX
Previous Message Scott Chapman 2003-06-18 18:59:04 plpython trigger not working