It's interesting, I've done a lot of work on SQL Server in the past and agree with you (better query planner, better partitioning support etc). But I mostly work on Postgres day to date now though, and have been pretty productive.
I actually prefer T-SQL's MERGE, partly because it's easier to get the ID out of the matched row than with Postgres, which ignores a RETURNING clause if nothing changed, and if you _force_ an UPDATE creates a new row version and increments any sequences involved. So I suppose I've been annoyed by both.
Mostly agree on the rest though. In addition to the language support, just being able to create an aggregate in SQL is a bonus for me inside Postgres, without having to do it on the CLR in SQL Server.
I think if MS are quick to support 10.0 when it's out, I agree this'll be a intriguing platform.
I actually prefer T-SQL's MERGE, partly because it's easier to get the ID out of the matched row than with Postgres, which ignores a RETURNING clause if nothing changed, and if you _force_ an UPDATE creates a new row version and increments any sequences involved. So I suppose I've been annoyed by both.
Mostly agree on the rest though. In addition to the language support, just being able to create an aggregate in SQL is a bonus for me inside Postgres, without having to do it on the CLR in SQL Server.
I think if MS are quick to support 10.0 when it's out, I agree this'll be a intriguing platform.