a) if money and hardware were truly no object, I would prefer
Postgres. With large amounts of 'no-object-money' I could hire enough
talented people to add whatever I wanted to Postgres. This would be
*far* cheaper than a mirrored action on Oracle.
b) In Oracle: partitions, tablespaces, CONNECT BY, more visible tuning
parameters.
In PG: rules, backups/exports have less options than Oracle but
are less likely to fuck me over from small version differences. So
I'd say PG is ahead in backups.
c) Oracle: administration, stupid tuning defaults, partition stupidity.
PG: no partitions or tablespaces. CONNECT BY would be nice, or
MERGE (iirc) -- the new keyword IBM will be bringing to the table to
combine the 'update or insert' two-statement approach we're all
familiar with into one DML.
d) dance, admins, dance!!
e) As soon as I destroy the unbelievers in comp.databases.theory I'll
pick through the remainder and see what's left.
All I really want right now in Postgres is partitions.
