Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:28:04 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Rodrigo =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=2E_De_Le=F3n?= Plicet <rdeleonp@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle / PostgreSQL comparison...
Message-ID: <20110624022803.GK32313@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <2814594e-49be-4b2a-97ef-a0c70df3fdfb@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1y1tiN5hVw5cPBDe"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2814594e-49be-4b2a-97ef-a0c70df3fdfb@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org

--1y1tiN5hVw5cPBDe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Rodrigo E. De Le=F3n Plicet (rdeleonp@gmail.com) wrote:
> Any comments?

Sure, they've never bothered to actually look at the data.  Consider
that for quite a while Oracle essentially refused to admit that their
could *possibly* be bugs in their system (see: Unbreakable Linux, or
whatever that foolishness was).  They also ignored remotely-exploitable
privilege escalation problems for *years* (oh, well, your databases
should be behind firewalls with only "trustworthy" people who can access
them directly...  yeah, right).

PG provides patches on a *very* consistent basis, based on need, and
even more so, core works with the CVE process and provides patches and
new releases accordingly (they don't just spring fixes on people..).

Next, PG doesn't even use the same basic technology as Oracle regarding
how transaction isolation and versioning works.  Oracle using rollback
segments to store 'old' rows in, while PG uses a Multi-Version
Concurrency Control (MVCC) system.  They're fundamentally different
things, so the notion that PG is somehow a 'reverse engineered' Oracle
is complete bunk.  Adhereing to the same standard *doesn't* make
something reverse enginered.

Additionally, there's *tons* of features that are in PG which aren't in
other RDBMS's, like, I dunno, *freakin' readline support*.  Have you
ever tried to actually *use* sqlplus on a regular basis?  It's *horrid*.
psql is miles ahead of sqlplus when it comes to a reasonable RDBMS
client, this guy even admits that (immediately after saying PG hasn't
got any features that other RDBMS's have...).  Yes, you can use the
rlwrap hack w/ sqlplus, but, seriously, when is Oracle going to bother
investing in their principle CLI again?  Never?  Seems that way.  Even
mysql's CLI is better than sqlplus, and they own the code to both now..

I love how he finishes with the claim that Oracle "keep their finger on
the pulse of where IT is headed", right after admitting that their
client is actually a huge piece of junk.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--1y1tiN5hVw5cPBDe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4D9jMACgkQrzgMPqB3kiheuwCfS7BPhCEgHt0no5I6SxR9Q6l+
tL8An0g2GJwkv1rbmxcmVCTwwQRh5vAG
=9xmm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1y1tiN5hVw5cPBDe--