Andy Yoder <ayoder@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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?" Hi Andy, You might be interested in an old post where I compared my experiences using a commercial database with using PostgreSQL in the Wisconsin Courts environment: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2011-11/msg00021.php With only 3000 directly connected users and a few million web hits a day backed by PostgreSQL, the Wisconsin court system is far from the largest user, but I figure that if the larger organizations want to broadcast their usage, that's up to them. I also have talked to others with much larger databases than we have -- our largest one is 3TB. Again, it's not my place to broadcast details if they don't choose to do so. But I think "out of the mainstream" is a very odd description of PostgreSQL. It sounds like the sort of thing which a representative of a commercial product, afraid of losing big money to PostgreSQL but unable to come up with any *real* reason not to use it, might throw out there to try to scare people away from it. I will join the chorus advising you to ask for more particular concerns. What is it that they think makes those other database products no more risky than PostgreSQL? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
