Absolutely. I’m surprised that the belief in much of the comments is that the technical input of developers (like myself) affects whether Oracle gets consideration.

Oracle gets consideration because teams want to have a lifeline if something goes wrong or (worst case) someone else to pin the blame on when it does. And this happens because some businesses are actually so big that that level of comfort doesn’t even dent the budget.

Oracle actually has some nice parts and some rough edges (a statement that applies equally to PG and SQL Server too, for instance), but it comes with a king-sized security blanket.

What is weird is that there are many good technical reasons to use Oracle. It's a very advanced and impressive database. The risks from doing business with Oracle are nearly all legal and business cost related. The sort of thing that are squarely under the supposed expertise of the non developer folks.

My objections against Oracle are not technical in nature. It is almost entirely cost and legal risk related.

You can get a Batphone without doing business with Oracle. Microsoft SQL Server will give you a Batphone and would still be better than doing business with Oracle.

I don't know if it is still the case but MS SQL was very deficient tech wise against Oracle DB, and never really a contender for a large OLTP DB. To the point that for some applications, it simply would not work due to excessive locking.

I've used MS SQL recently and it holds up more than fine if you tune it properly. Oracle also needs tuning properly so that's not big deal.

support contracts are mitigations to management career problems, not to technology problems. Managers always want that throat to choke to deflect blame or buy time