http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48339 The interesting part is where somebody asks why NOT use postgres, and it's answers could give some additional hints to those interested on what people find missing from postgres to adopt it. Just to summarize some of the answers: * major PITA to upgrade between major versions; * executing a single query on multiple cpus/cores; * no direct table cache control; * accent-insensitive text comparisons; * fast select count(*); Wrong assumptions (but people seem to be sure it's like this): * no hotbackup except pg_dump (wrong: there are in fact a few different ways to do that); * pg_dump the only way to cleanly upgrade (wrong: slony is good for that); * missing 2 phase commit (wrong: it is now implemented); * inadequate performance with really large databases (wrong: there are known examples of really large postgres DBs); There are other claims like (quoting): "RAC, enterprise backup capabilities, database on raw partition, compatibility with enterprise storage (SAN,...)" which I don't know if there are adequate solutions for postgres or not. Cheers, Csaba. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
