Re: Who'd want SQL server
"when PostgreSQL is faster"
Do fee free to post some recognised benchmarks to back that up? In all recent examples I have seen, SQL Server was much faster.
"better"
How so? Vastly smaller feature set, much less support from other products, and more security vulnerabilities don't exactly seem like that to me...
"and available for free?"
If your time, cost of additional hardware for required similar performance, and security and system capabilities have no value to you - and you don't need support?