Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment

On 6/2/20 3:27 AM, Tim Clarke wrote:
> On 02/06/2020 09:22, Ron wrote:
>> The inability to do a point-in-time restoration of a *single* database in
>> a multi-db cluster is a serious -- and fundamental -- missing feature
>> (never to be implemented because of the fundamental design).
>>
>> In SQL Server, it's trivial to restore -- including differentials and WAL
>> files -- an old copy of a prod database *to a different name* so that you
>> now have databases FOO and FOO_OLD in the same instance.
>>
>> In Postgres, though, you've got to create a new cluster using a new port
>> number (which in our case means sending a firewall request through
>> channels and waiting two weeks while the RISK team approves opening the
>> port -- and they might decline it because it's non-standard -- and then
>> the Network team creates a /change order/ and then implements it).
>>
>> Bottom line: something I can do in an afternoon with SQL Server takes two
>> weeks for Postgres.
>>
>> This has given Postgres a big, fat black eye with our end users.
>>
>> --
>> Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
>
>
> But that's nothing to do with Postgres; it takes two weeks because you
> have broken procedures imho
>

Following ISO 20000 process (which is a pain) doesn't impact SQL Server like
it does Postgres.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.