On 13/1/22 6:04 μ.μ., Achilleas
Mantzios wrote:
to be more clear, they forked the initially ISV 20 years ago, so now there is effectively only in-house.On 13/1/22 5:02 μ.μ., Alicja Kucharczyk wrote:
czw., 13 sty 2022 o 15:54 Achilleas Mantzios <achill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
On 13/1/22 4:51 μ.μ., Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud schrieb am 13.01.2022 um 15:13:
>> I would go with option A if possible. If you want to get an idea of how
>> complicated a migration would be, ora2pg does have a migration cost assessment
>> report [1]. It can even check the queries if you have the audit trail enabled
>> on your oracle database (if that existed in that version).
>>
> I second this. Option A) is much cleaner. In my experience compatibility layers
> that promise that "System A" behaves exactly like "System B" also introduce
> a lot of additional problems. And if something goes wrong, you can never be sure
> which part causes the problem.
Thanks, of course I agree with the last sentence.
>
>
>
--
Achilleas Mantzios
DBA, Analyst, IT Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
just to be clear is it an ISV or in-house built system? Because I see two different answers ...
in-house, and when not in house source is available, can you pls show me where I wrote a conflicting answer?
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
