[Yeroc]

My experience has been the opposite. Oracle (the database) is actually a really solid product for the most part. Oracle (the company) is a different story. My eyes were really opened to some of the technical shortcomings in Postgres when we migrated from Oracle to Postgres a few years ago at $DAYJOB. Things like: a) global temp tables (there's an open source extension we had to use to fake this out), b) RLS (exists in PG but most functions that you might need to build on top perform badly), c) crashes in PG take out the whole database and a host of other smaller items. I'm not saying it wasn't worth it, but I wouldn't pretend Postgres is the best database either.

[hyperman1]

Oracle the database is the Apple of Enterprise. They have some best in class aspects, but also a lot of you're holding it wrong. They cost a lot and have a really arrogant culture. They both have a rabid reality-denying fanbase. The support is either fantastic if you ask a known question, or a hellscape of inconsistent answers and denials if you dont.

[animitronix]

They lost me decades ago over the lack of auto incrementing PKs and having to cobble them together through a sequence and a trigger if I remember right. Seemed like utter nonsense. But I'll take your word that you got value out of the features you mentioned. The company side will forever prevent me from taking any of their products seriously though.

[mulmen]

I love Postgres and it is a shining example of how good software can be. Great job everyone, no notes.

BUT Oracle has some killer features that PG just doesn’t. The first that comes to mind is for-real multi-master. Close second is declaring partitions in the DDL of the table itself.