Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

There is some my publications about SART AML System, where is more detailed described all this things (and more) that I wrote below. http://www.analyticsql.org/documentation.html Regards, Blazej Oleszkiewicz 2008/9/4 Blazej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Artacus > > 2008/9/4 Artacus <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

For an alternative view of the security argument, which may be a little off topic... One consideration in regard to arguments for additional security, whether column and row level security or the divergent thread on obfuscated stored procedures is whether postgresql currently supports PCI (in

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission. > CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and > Postgresql) >

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Christophe wrote: Without getting into the argument as to the level of security provided, it strikes me that a reasonable approach would be a non- core pluggable language which accepts encrypted strings as functions, decrypts them (using a key compiled into the la

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Christophe wrote: it strikes me that a reasonable approach would be a non-core pluggable language which accepts encrypted strings as functions, decrypts them (using a key compiled into the language module), and passes them on to PL/pgSQL for execution...This would, of cour

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:25:25PM -0700, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > Gee, I wonder why companies that support these antics grow to insane > sizes of employees? Meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- S

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:14 PM, David Fetter wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:05:26PM -0700, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: On Sep 15, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The problem is that the people who ask for this type of feature are usually imagining that they can put their code on customer-control

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Asko Oja wrote: What i see is lack of useless bells and whistles in PostgreSQL and i like it. Then you aren't paying attention very well. PostgreSQL comes with an extremely rich and useful set of bells and whistles than most people never use, in a non-detrime

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Scott Ribe wrote: the sort of person who thinks re-using someone else's undocumented code is easier than writing it from scratch is probably not going to be able to learn the code via debugging tools. There are two distinct extremes here, and I think most people

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David Fetter wrote: C is not magic obfuscation gear. Anybody with a debugger can expose what it's doing. Yes, but you don't get original code, comments, etc. and it takes a lot of effort to refine it back down into something maintainable. People looking to pro

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 16, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: After some research, I found this article that I believe will make a stronger use case: http://www.iosn.net/network/news/Managing%20the%20insider%20threat%20through %20code%20obfuscation I can tell without even clicking the link that it wo

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: As for the expectation above - could pl/pgsql be made compilable? Without getting into the argument as to the level of security provided, it strikes me that a reasonable approach would be a non- core pluggable language which accepts encr

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:05:26PM -0700, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > On Sep 15, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The problem is that the people who ask for this type of feature are >> usually imagining that they can put their code on >> customer-controlled machines and it will be safe from the

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > To an extent we *can* simulate row-level and column-level security > through the use of very restricted data tables and more generally- > available or specific-purpose views, but we cannot make PostgreSQL > call a custom function to determine from it's output whether

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Sep 15, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The problem is that the people who ask for this type of feature are usually imagining that they can put their code on customer-controlled machines and it will be safe from the customer's eyes. That's a broken expectation. All that can realisticall

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 15, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: Like MySQL has built in replication. You know, I hear this particular example about MySQL's replication implementation a lot against any sort of new feature, and it's important to recognize the difference here. Replication is *not* a funct

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

eneral@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:15:24 -0700 > > On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Robert Treat wrote: > > It is not as simple as Oracles database link syntax. Setting up a > > connection > > involves a couple o

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 15, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: But whether it's oracle or postgresql, this is just security through obscurity. If you have root access on the server either method would be trivial to hack. You just contradicted yourself. If you have root access on the server all bets are o

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 15, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Christophe wrote: More seriously, this is the issue with code-encryption on an open source platform: Where do you keep the key? From my (admittedly brief) research, it appears that Oracle bakes it into the server binary, which isn't going to work for PG. Just

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:13 AM, Asko Oja wrote: but why would you put part of your business logic into some configuration tables while you could keep it in your own functions Because as bad as my Not Invented Here syndrome might be at times, I know that I would not be able to alone build as ele

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:13:29PM +0300, Asko Oja wrote: > > > > but why would you put part of your business logic into some configuration > > tables while you could keep it in your own functions > > Because the paramete

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 1, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Henry wrote: This is /finally/ being addressed, although (very) belatedly. The Pg core dev team always argued that replication was an add-on and should not form part of the core (ie, similar nonsense excuses the MySQL team used for "add-ons" such as triggers, etc

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Robert Treat wrote: It is not as simple as Oracles database link syntax. Setting up a connection involves a couple of sql looking commands, and once you setup a connection to a remote database, you can reference a table with something like select * from [EMAIL PRO

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, David Fetter wrote: Roles, We have 'em. We do NOT have secure application roles or anywhere near the level of configurability in security aspects as Oracle. We've got a great foundation, but we lack a lot of fine-grained granularity (e.g. an Oracle SAR can

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:13:29PM +0300, Asko Oja wrote: > > but why would you put part of your business logic into some configuration > tables while you could keep it in your own functions Because the parameters of the business logic should not be in the code. The parameters should be part of

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Casey Allen Shobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, David Fetter wrote: > >> Roles, >>> >> >> We have 'em. >> > > We do NOT have secure application roles or anywhere near the level of > configurability in security aspects as Oracle. We've g

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, David Fetter wrote: Roles, We have 'em. We do NOT have secure application roles or anywhere near the level of configurability in security aspects as Oracle. We've got a great foundation, but we lack a lot of fine-grained granularity (e.g. an Oracle SAR can

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

> the sort of person who > thinks re-using someone else's undocumented code is easier than > writing it from scratch is probably not going to go to the trouble of > really learning the code via debugging tools. Fixed that for you: the sort of person who thinks re-using someone else's undocumented

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 1, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Henry wrote: This is /finally/ being addressed, although (very) belatedly. The Pg core dev team always argued that replication was an add-on and should not form part of the core (ie, similar nonsense excuses the MySQL team used for "add-ons" such as triggers, etc

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Robert Treat wrote: It is not as simple as Oracles database link syntax. Setting up a connection involves a couple of sql looking commands, and once you setup a connection to a remote database, you can reference a table with something like select * from [EMAIL PRO

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 08:05:18AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: >> C is not magic obfuscation gear. ... > To be fair, one of the points that others are trying to make is not > "secure this function for real" but "secure this function enough to > make it

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Casey Allen Shobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A knowledgeable PostgreSQL DBA can make significantly more than an Oracle > DBA as they're a scarcer resource and generally higher quality on average. > But it may be harder for them to find work - they may end up hav

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

> C is not magic obfuscation gear. Anybody with a debugger > can expose > what it's doing. There have been math papers showing > that it's > impossible to hide the functionality of a piece of software > based only > on the ability to run it, so the entire prospect of > obscuring the > software's

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:44 PM, David Fetter wrote: What they want to have is a huge entity they can blame when everything goes wrong. They're not interested in the actual response times or even in the much more important time-to-fix because once they've blamed Oracle, they know the responsibility

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 08:05:18AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > C is not magic obfuscation gear. Anybody with a debugger can expose > what it's doing. There have been math papers showing that it's > impossible to hide the functionality of a piece of software based only > on the ability to run it,

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 02:12:19PM +, Glyn Astill wrote: > > I'm not sure what the policy is on putting stuff in the docs, but > > how about putting that in the relevant place, as well as a note > > about the other option; using C and SPI. > > C is not magic obfuscation g

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 02:12:19PM +, Glyn Astill wrote: > I'm not sure what the policy is on putting stuff in the docs, but > how about putting that in the relevant place, as well as a note > about the other option; using C and SPI. C is not magic obfuscation gear. Anybody with a debugger ca

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

I'm not sure what the policy is on putting stuff in the docs, but how about putting that in the relevant place, as well as a note about the other option; using C and SPI. > Added to TODO under features not wanted: > > Incomplete itemObfuscated function source code (not > wanted) >

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

Added to TODO under features not wanted: Incomplete itemObfuscated function source code (not wanted) Obfuscating function source code has minimal protective benefits because anyone with super-user access can find a way to view the code. To prevent non-

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Am 2008-09-15 10:12:08, schrieb Joshua Drake: > Are we going to start a VI vs Emacs argument too? They are out of concurence since I am using mc (Midnight Commander). :-P Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Doga

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Merlin Moncure wrote: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Martin Gainty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: accessing: i *thought* the advantage of creating any SQL procedure/function was the entity is stored in procedure cache load time: Java vs C++ compare here http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/java

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:54:18 -0500 "Roberts, Jon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wasn't kidding up there. Setting view permissions on plpgsql (or > > any pl code really) would be understandable. If you're not a super > > user or the owner, you need permission to see it. > > > > How can I ma

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 15, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> > >> I could totally get behind needing permission to see the plpgsql code. > > > > :) > > I wasn't kidding up there. Setting view permissions on plpgsql (or

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:39:03AM -0400, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: > > I agree here. I hope there's a consensus that it does offer some level of > protection. There is not, in fact, in the security community a consensus that it offers some level of protection. There are some security people w

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

> One big reason why nothing hasn't been done is that > there is a decent > 'low tech' obfuscation tactic already: remove > select access from > pg_proc to the user accounts in question and > 'public'. This will > essentially disable casual browsing of procedure code from > user > accounts. Neat

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

Nice trick ... thanks! > One big reason why nothing hasn't been done is that there is a decent > 'low tech' obfuscation tactic already: remove select access from > pg_proc to the user accounts in question and 'public'. This will > essentially disable casual browsing of procedure code from user >

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Tue Sep 16 08:40 AM, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> What I'm _asking_ is why would extending SECURITY DEFINER to include >>> preventing unauthorized users from viewing code _not_ be a valid >>> method of securin

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As much as I'm impressed with the "we do it properly or not at all" attitude, > it'd be nice if there was an option to stop the casual user from viewing code. > > I'll admit to obfusicating bits and pieces using C, even th

Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql)

> Because it's so full of obvious loopholes. Yes, > it might slow down > > someone who didn't have superuser access to the > database or root access > > to the machine it's on; but that doesn't count > as secure really. The > > problem is that the people who ask for this type of > feature are usu

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

2008/9/9 0123 zyxw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Kevin Hunter wrote: >> >> 1. Oracle was "first", and has vendor lock-in momentum. >> 2. Oracle ...speed/performance/concurrency... >> 3. Oracle has application lock-in as well. ... >> 4. Oracle is company-backed, so there is ostensibly "someone to blame"..

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Kevin Hunter wrote: 1. Oracle was "first", and has vendor lock-in momentum. 2. Oracle ...speed/performance/concurrency... 3. Oracle has application lock-in as well. ... 4. Oracle is company-backed, so there is ostensibly "someone to blame".. 5. ... individuals ... may prefer it *because* it's ex

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Lars Haugseth wrote: http://www.amazon.com/PostgreSQL-Reference-Manual-SQL-Language/dp/0954612027/ref=pd_sim_b_1 Though I mostly use the online version, I'm considering buying these. However, I'm probably going to kill myself if I find a new edition for sale only a short wh

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

So that is for real huh? I've been to that web site before and figured it was more marketing talk about what they wanted to do rather than a product that was already to market. 2008/9/4 Artacus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Oh, as I was writing a CUBE query today and realized that I forgot to mention

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

I'm running all 8.3. But I don't think it makes a difference. There is some geometry type cube function but its not at all like the OLAP cube that I'm talking about. What version of Postgres are you running? On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Artacus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wednesday 03 September 2008 09:17:54 Asko Oja wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Robert Treat > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:21:12 Asko Oja wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Michael Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Oracle handles connec

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Richard Broersma") wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kevin Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 7. Though I don't personally buy it, I have heard others complain > > loudly that there is no print-version of Postgres documentation. > > > This one should be ta

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

> > Oh, as I was writing a CUBE query today and realized that I forgot to > mention this. And unlike most gripes, like MERGE INTO or CTE's which are > really convenience things, this is key piece of functionality that you > just can't reproduce in Postgres. > > That said, there's not the same s

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Oh, as I was writing a CUBE query today and realized that I forgot to mention this. And unlike most gripes, like MERGE INTO or CTE's which are really convenience things, this is key piece of functionality that you just can't reproduce in Postgres. That said, there's not the same sense of comm

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >> >> What they want to have is a huge entity they can blame when everything >> goes wrong. They're not interested in the actual response times or >> even in the much more important time-to-fix because onc

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

David Fetter wrote: What they want to have is a huge entity they can blame when everything goes wrong. They're not interested in the actual response times or even in the much more important time-to-fix because once they've blamed Oracle, they know the responsibility is no longer on their shoulde

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:36 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if Oracle changed recently, but the last few times I used it, > it was incredibly annoying having to put everything in a subquery to get a > LIMIT-type operation to work AFTER the sort, so that you could use their > ROWNUM

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

I don't know if Oracle changed recently, but the last few times I used it, it was incredibly annoying having to put everything in a subquery to get a LIMIT-type operation to work AFTER the sort, so that you could use their ROWNUM. For example, to get the first 50 rows of a SELECT result. Their

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:21:12 Asko Oja wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Michael Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oracle handles connecting to multiple databases (even on > multiple/remote > > > compute

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

I can't speak from the dba perspective, but I mainly write applications against Postgres and Oracle. I've used a dozen or more RDBMS's and Postgres and Oracle are by far the most similar of any two. When the two differ, its about an even split for when I say "I wish Oracle did it like Postgres

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 22:56 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:21:12 Asko Oja wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Michael Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oracle handles connecting to multiple databases (even on multiple/remote > > > computers) fairly seamless

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:21:12 Asko Oja wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Michael Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oracle handles connecting to multiple databases (even on multiple/remote > > computers) fairly seamlessly, PG does not (yet.) > > Stuff we do with plProxy on PostgreS

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Michael Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oracle handles connecting to multiple databases (even on multiple/remote > computers) fairly seamlessly, PG does not (yet.) > Stuff we do with plProxy on PostgreSQL is in some respects more advanced than anything Oracle has

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Richard Broersma wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kevin Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 7. Though I don't personally buy it, I have heard others complain loudly that there is no print-version of Postgres documentation. This one should be taken off the list. The postgresql online

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Oracle handles connecting to multiple databases (even on multiple/remote computers) fairly seamlessly, PG does not (yet.) Oracle's toolsets (for things like forms and reports) are much further developed than PG's too, though there are 3rd party tools that work with both. Back in the old mainframe

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 04:39:09PM +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > David Fetter, 01.09.2008 16:08: >>> because we are making extensive usage of Oracle's windowing >>> functions >> >> http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv04/design.html > > I knew there was work going on regarding this, but I didn't know ho

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

David Fetter, 01.09.2008 16:08: because we are making extensive usage of Oracle's windowing functions http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv04/design.html I knew there was work going on regarding this, but I didn't know how definite the decision was to integrate that into 8.4 It's too bad lead(), l

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:31:25AM +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Scott Marlowe, 31.08.2008 22:44: >> I think some of it is inertia. We've always used Oracle, let's >> just keep on using it. The more conservative the IT department is, >> the less likely they are to take chances with new technolo

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Henry wrote: On Sun, August 31, 2008 10:44 pm, Scott Marlowe wrote: The other thing that holds back PostgreSQL right now is a lack of experienced pgsql DBAs and application developers. That will change over time. And built-in, simple to use, reliable, flexible and fast replication. Many a Pg

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Scott Marlowe, 31.08.2008 22:44: I think some of it is inertia. We've always used Oracle, let's just keep on using it. The more conservative the IT department is, the less likely they are to take chances with new technology. It used to be there was about an 80/20 split between what things you

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Mon, September 1, 2008 4:09 am, Craig Ringer wrote: > Right now, PostgreSQL has network-based master-to-slave(s) clustering > using Slony that permits slaves to operate online read-only as reporting > servers etc. It also covers failover with the use of an external > heartbeat/STONITH setup. How

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, August 31, 2008 10:44 pm, Scott Marlowe wrote: > The other thing that holds back PostgreSQL right now is a lack of > experienced pgsql DBAs and application developers. That will change > over time. And built-in, simple to use, reliable, flexible and fast replication. Many a Pg admin or i

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

I agree with David's comment. The business I work for recently proposed a FOSS based solution for a client, but were told no FOSS solutions would be considered. We had a subcontractor offer a support contract for an application based on the same FOSS components, but with a support contract. Th

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sunday 31 August 2008, Christophe wrote: > On Aug 31, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: > > CTOs/CIOs like to sleep at night. > > If you buy Oracle, and there's a problem, the conversation with the > CEO is that "Oracle broke." With PG, even if you have exactly the > same level of support

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44:38PM -0400, Guy Rouillier wrote: > M2Y wrote: >> >> Why most enterprises prefer Oracle than Postgres even though it is >> free and has a decent enough user community. > > Databases are a critical part of many companies' business. I work > for telecom company, and if

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Aug 31, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: CTOs/CIOs like to sleep at night. If you buy Oracle, and there's a problem, the conversation with the CEO is that "Oracle broke." With PG, even if you have exactly the same level of support, "that database you selected broke." The sad rea

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

M2Y wrote: Why most enterprises prefer Oracle than Postgres even though it is free and has a decent enough user community. Databases are a critical part of many companies' business. I work for telecom company, and if we were to lose our databases, we'd be out of business, period. So, "fre

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

M2Y wrote: > Hello, > > I am a CS graduate and I have a brief idea of Postgres and Oracle. > But, I dont have an in-depth knowledge in any of them. I have a couple > of questions and > > I want to compare both of them in terms of functionality, performance, > advantages and disadvantages. > > Wh

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Another thing that has only been mentioned obliquely is support. When an organization selects an enterprise wide mission critical database system they get a lot of perceived security from purchasing a world-wide 24x7 support contract from a company with the resources that Oracle can provide. Ye

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> 7. Though I don't personally buy it, I have heard others complain >> loudly that there is no print-version of Postgres documentation. > This one should be taken off the list. The postgresql online > reference manual is in print( volumes 1

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kevin Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 7. Though I don't personally buy it, I have heard others complain > loudly that there is no print-version of Postgres documentation. This one should be taken off the list. The postgresql online reference manual is in p

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

At 2:29pm -0400 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Srinivas wrote: > I want to compare both of them in terms of functionality, performance, > advantages and disadvantages. If you publish anything, watch out for the Oracle licensing no-nos. Specifically, I believe they disallow certain comparisons. I believe pe

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:29 PM, M2Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am a CS graduate and I have a brief idea of Postgres and Oracle. > But, I dont have an in-depth knowledge in any of them. I have a couple > of questions and > > I want to compare both of them in terms of functionality,

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:29:32AM -0700, M2Y wrote: > Hello, > > I am a CS graduate and I have a brief idea of Postgres and Oracle. > But, I dont have an in-depth knowledge in any of them. I have a > couple of questions and > > I want to compare both of them in terms of functionality, > performa

[GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql

Hello, I am a CS graduate and I have a brief idea of Postgres and Oracle. But, I dont have an in-depth knowledge in any of them. I have a couple of questions and I want to compare both of them in terms of functionality, performance, advantages and disadvantages. Why most enterprises prefer Oracl

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and PostgreSQL

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:32:38PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > Hello my friends, > > We are going to change some Oracle 8i and 9i databases to PostgreSQL > 8 at my company. > > 1st: Is there somebody who knows how to do it (had the same > experience)? What are the limitations of this p

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and PostgreSQL

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: OK! I've got to run now, but will search more about it tomorrow. Could you give me more details / references? You don't want to do it automatically. You want to do it by hand but it isn't that hard. Automatically? How? About the link between the two databases, where

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and PostgreSQL

OK! I've got to run now, but will search more about it tomorrow. Could you give me more details / references? > You don't want to do it automatically. You want to do it by hand but it > isn't that hard. Automatically? How? About the link between the two databases, where can I find how to do it

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and PostgreSQL

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > Hello my friends, > > > We are going to change some Oracle 8i and 9i databases to PostgreSQL > 8 at my company. > > > 1st: Is there somebody who knows how to do it (had the same > experience)? What are the limitations of this process (eg: > incompatible data type

[GENERAL] Oracle and PostgreSQL

Hello my friends,     We are going to change some Oracle 8i and 9i databases to PostgreSQL 8 at my company.     1st: Is there somebody who knows how to do it (had the same experience)? What are the limitations of this process (eg: incompatible data types and objects).   2nd: Which t

Re: [ADMIN] [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on

On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 06:58, Troyston Campano wrote: > I guess what I am concerned about *is* running on a production server more > than a test server. Basically, I'd be taking a couple applications that are > running on the Oracle database instance, building a Postgresql instance, and > migrating

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on Same Computer?

> Are there any issues running Postgresql and Oracle on the same > machine.anything special to know about memory, disk layout, and things > like > that? I just want to make sure the two engines play together on this > same > server. I had a hard time finding information about this via google. We cu

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on Same

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 23:03, Troyston Campano wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Oracle DBA and I want do a Postgresql âproof of conceptâ at > the large corporation where I work to test the benefits of using > Postgresql in our environment. I want to install Postgresql onto a > âproductionâ server that

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on Same Computer?

s to Postgresql. Thank you for your time! ~ Troyston Campano ~ -Original Message- From: Ian Barwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:07 AM To: Troyston Campano Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postg

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on Same Computer?

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:03:28 -0500, Troyston Campano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am an Oracle DBA and I want do a Postgresql 'proof of concept' at the > large corporation where I work to test the benefits of using Postgresql in > our environment. I want to install Postgresql onto

[GENERAL] Oracle and Postgresql Play Nice Together on Same Computer?

Hello, I am an Oracle DBA and I want do a Postgresql ‘proof of concept’ at the large corporation where I work to test the benefits of using Postgresql in our environment. I want to install Postgresql onto a “production” server that currently runs Oracle. Are there any problems with runnin

  1   2   >