> > I've never met a company that uses oracle features that aren't available in Postgres
> I'm sure you'r in the majority here on HN, but that's merely selection bias. Also, it's true today, but was it true 17 years ago, circa Oracle 9i?
As somebody working on PostgreSQL full time, I very much agree on that. Neither today nor back in the 9i days has PostgreSQL implemented everything Oracle provides. Nor the reverse, for that matter. And I'm not just talking about features nobody uses.
> > It also impractical to maintain without a dedicated DBA.
> That's simply false, as the Oracle DBA I know routinely contraced out to companies as a temporary, non-dedicated DBA.
I do think it's easier to operate several databases, including PG, without a dedicated DBA in comparison to Oracle. Obviously it's entirely possible for both.
> I'm sure you'r in the majority here on HN, but that's merely selection bias. Also, it's true today, but was it true 17 years ago, circa Oracle 9i?
As somebody working on PostgreSQL full time, I very much agree on that. Neither today nor back in the 9i days has PostgreSQL implemented everything Oracle provides. Nor the reverse, for that matter. And I'm not just talking about features nobody uses.
> > It also impractical to maintain without a dedicated DBA.
> That's simply false, as the Oracle DBA I know routinely contraced out to companies as a temporary, non-dedicated DBA.
I do think it's easier to operate several databases, including PG, without a dedicated DBA in comparison to Oracle. Obviously it's entirely possible for both.