2012/9/1 Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder <ayoder@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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?" >> > It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it > technical risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes > out of business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense > of what exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question > you aren't doing yourself any favors. > > The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a > conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer > to. You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different > approaches: > > 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project > with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate > development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business > applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach > than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the > same db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has > to live with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether > 0000-00-00 is a valid date for error checking purposes. Tens years PostgreSQL has no sellers, who push PostgreSQL to end customers. Almost all clients just wait to sellers - I was surprised how much developers are really passive - and how much developers has minimal informations about PostgreSQL. We are relative well in pushing information in open source channels, but it is speaking to relative smaller group of developers. > > 2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant > number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain > registry comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of > development is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional > about change management. > > 3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors > offering top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an > ability to just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means > support will continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a > very different thing from single vendor software, where support will > continue as long as the vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it. > > Best Wishes, > Chris travers -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
