Re: "Too far out of the mainstream"

2012/9/1 Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder <ayoder@airfacts.com> 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