Golden Gate, RAC, Management Tools, stable plans, decent parallelism, decent partitioning, some columnar stuff - that's not just marketing fluff.
Oracle's politics / sales tactics, and cost are one large argument against, being able to influence feature development / add features yourself another, against Oracle, that I've seen driving companies - including big financial ones - away from oracle over time. Often that's not starting with the business critical stuff, but with some smaller project, and then grows over time.
There's some things (better replication out of the box , higher performance).
> but not much discussion on how PG will come to parity
That's because this subthread started with "No one ever chooses Oracle or Sybase on technical merits." - neither Postgres' strengths and needed/planned improvements are relevant to refute that position.
> on how PG will come to parity and how we'll know when it's finally good enough to use.
Just because Oracle has some features that postgres doesn't match doesn't mean it's not good enough. There's a lot of features where postgres is further along than Oracle, too. For a good number of OLTPish workloads postgres is faster.
We're talking about large and complex products here - it's seldomly the case that one project/product is going to be better than all others in all respects. Postgres has been good enough to use for a long time.
If you're interested in which areas postgres needs to improve, I'm happy to talk about that too.