3 ms·

I worked at a place that had a huge Oracle RAC license. We ran non-mission-critical data collection apps on it, but the app which dispensed drugs in real-time,

I worked at a place that had a huge Oracle RAC license. We ran non-mission-critical data collection apps on it, but the app which dispensed drugs in real-time, all over the world, not only ran Postgres, but 90% of the business logic was in DB functions.

sandGorgon 16y ago
I sometimes think that the lack of books for Postgres is because someone is paying to keep them off the market. Every few days on pgsql.general mailing lists, there is someone asking for a good Postgresql book (the "High Performance MySQL" kind) Less books = one more tick mark for Oracle.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 16y ago
  More books = you writing one. If you won't do it, why should anyone else?
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    Because there are people who consider themselves technical writers. Either they do it or someone from the core postgresql team who has the credibility.
ora600 16y ago
I would love to hear why you made this decision.
- euroclydon 16y ago
  I didn't. It wasn't subversive, like the parent comment. It just worked out that way because of technology acquisitions. Customers wanted to hear their data was "on Oracle." My take is that the overhead of maintaining and using Oracle means that you have to cut resources somewhere else. I'm pretty sure a competent DBA and developers can ensure atomicity and integrity using Postgres (instead of Oracle), and have a lot of time left over to create more features in the application.
  - ora600 16y ago
    Don't get me wrong - Postgres is awesome and I would happily use it for any project. I'm not sure Postgres is easier to manage than Oracle and places any less maintenance overhead, but YMMV. Its just that RAC is a special technology with no equivalent on other DBs. It is usually placed where you need load balancing on the DB level. It normally has very high availability that is a good fit for mission critical DBs. I hate seeing good technology wasted, but you are right that if Postgres is already there and works well, there is no point in moving anywhere.

sandGorgon 16y ago

I sometimes think that the lack of books for Postgres is because someone is paying to keep them off the market. Every few days on pgsql.general mailing lists, there is someone asking for a good Postgresql book (the "High Performance MySQL" kind) Less books = one more tick mark for Oracle.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 16y ago
More books = you writing one. If you won't do it, why should anyone else?
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  Because there are people who consider themselves technical writers. Either they do it or someone from the core postgresql team who has the credibility.

ora600 16y ago

I would love to hear why you made this decision.

euroclydon 16y ago
I didn't. It wasn't subversive, like the parent comment. It just worked out that way because of technology acquisitions. Customers wanted to hear their data was "on Oracle." My take is that the overhead of maintaining and using Oracle means that you have to cut resources somewhere else. I'm pretty sure a competent DBA and developers can ensure atomicity and integrity using Postgres (instead of Oracle), and have a lot of time left over to create more features in the application.
- ora600 16y ago
  Don't get me wrong - Postgres is awesome and I would happily use it for any project. I'm not sure Postgres is easier to manage than Oracle and places any less maintenance overhead, but YMMV. Its just that RAC is a special technology with no equivalent on other DBs. It is usually placed where you need load balancing on the DB level. It normally has very high availability that is a good fit for mission critical DBs. I hate seeing good technology wasted, but you are right that if Postgres is already there and works well, there is no point in moving anywhere.