That's cute. And it might even work in a startup. But likely not.

But in the enterprise world nobody really cares what engineers think. You have Enterprise Architects, Technical Architects, Solution Architects etc. who get paid exorbitant amounts of money, are political animals and can masterfully straddle the line between business and technology. Most of them are ex-engineers so they aren't entirely useless and since they have their own language they will make you look stupid. Can't articulate the transition from a tactical to strategic solution and explain what business capabilities it aligns to ? Well good luck getting that past the central Enterprise Architects who will need to sign off on your choice before it heads to Procurement/Legal.

Architects along with IT managers and CIOs are the people whom the famous Oracle Sales machine targets with golf games, overseas trips and fancy dinners. It's never engineers. I spent a few years at Oracle. They are a multi billion dollar company for a reason.

In an Enterprise, you almost never buy 'a database'. There's a solution/application that you buy, that will have a supported DB backed (usually Oracle or MSSQL). That solution is mostly picked on business capabilities and functionality. The technical component is only one aspect of the requirements, which cover business capabilities/features, technical fit within existing environment, data migration/compatibility, vendor support, vendor credentials, the amount of training required, the amount of business change needed, etc.

These projects often cost $10m+, once you factor in the technical implementation and integration, business process changes, training for business staff, training for IT staff, transition costs, etc.

So if you want to argue that the business should get the solution that fits their requirements the second best, because the 'best' one has an Oracle backend, you had better come up with a shit-hot reason that can't be solved with 'hire a couple of Oracle engineers'.

Let me read you a specification I got for a project a while back:

Build and implement an Intranet system based on Oracle

That was the start, and finish of the spec we got. Question about what sort of information the intranet stores? Here's your answer:

As long as it uses Oracle

Standing your ground where Oracle is involved usually just means quitting. Not every engineer has that luxury.

Well yes, engineers do need to learn how to stand their ground - over things like pay and working conditions. But no amount of standing your ground will let you overrule the CTO on a corporate strategic decision, no matter how mistaken. As the saying goes, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

PG 9.6 brought bidirectional replication in and supported via mainline extension (no patches).

http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/bdr-is-coming-to-postgresql-9-6/

Unfortunately those are blocker level issues for most enterprisey IT managements.

Adding extra implementation to application, to do the database's work against the usual division of labor, no thanks. And bringing some shady 3rd party support package on top of the database is a second really big no.

For businesses only what you get out of the box counts. Otherwise you can always state that "the platform has C++ compiler, stfu and code". That doesn't really work. The companies are into buying complete products for a reason: they don't want to implement unnecessarily things they really should just get out of the box.

TBH I love postgres, but before they offer proper multi-master transactions out of the box most companies just still go for Oracle. That's similar as to why people buy Photoshop. GIMP fell some 10 years after in usability and features when they did not prioritize implementing the dynamic layer effect system. Instead of that they chose to masturbate with GEGL or something like that for 10 years, without providing the actual end user requested features. The situation still stands there, before they implement what Photoshop 4 or so did they got no chance of being valid alternative...

...except when it comes to support for talking with Tuxedo. I guess my shop may be one of the largest Tuxedo users in the world, so it makes WLS kind of mandatory :(

There are several unit testing frameworks for PL/SQL. Code in the database encapsulates business logic, it gives you unified access from all clients. It can also be orders of magnitude faster. The presentation linked here

https://thehelsinkideclaration.blogspot.co.at/2016/09/noplsq...

proves that with flame graphs for a simple workload done from the app server vs. implemented in PL/SQL.

They can scale by normalizing and dropping transactions. Then that's really close to a NoSQL db, so might as well use a No SQL db.

You say this garbage every time this comes up. "Mom and pop shops". Yes, those exist, but they're the minority.

You're generally either dealing with EnterpriseDB, or you're dealing with a company that is run by people who are significant contributors to the project — literally, on the core committee — or have people who have created meaningful parts of the PostgreSQL ecosystem.

You need to drop this FUD.

I will never again use or support an Oracle product after they literally, specifically cost a former employer $.75mm, on Cyber Monday by giving us factually false information.