PostgreSQL 7.3 Released

rtaylor writes "Nearly a year's worth of work is out. The new tricks include schema support, prepared queries, dependency tracking, improved privileges, table (record) based functions, improved internationalization support, and a whole slew of other new features, fixes, and performance improvements. Release Email - Download Here - Mirror FTP sites (at bottom)."

Comments

Cool! PostgreSQL always runs on my iBook

[MarkWatson]

PostgreSQL is a great database. I always run it as a daemon on my iBook since the Smallttalk development environment that I run needs a relational database for source code control.
-Mark

Quick question

[Noose For A Neck]

Did they do anything to improve/add replication support? That seems to be the only real thing that was holding it back from replacing Oracle, as far as I can tell. I know several projects for such a thing were in the works, but they appeared to be very beta.

Re:Quick question

[Khalid]

I don't know about this one, but one the things that were holding it back from replacing Oracle were stored procedures Table function now brings one of the features of stored procedures : the ability to return sets.

Table Functions : Functions returning multiple rows and/or multiple columns are now much easier to use than before. You can call such a "table function" in the SELECT FROM clause, treating its output like a table. Also, PL/pgSQL functions can now return sets.

Oh yes you are..

[Marcus Green]

OK so you have found software that addresses your problems and that accounts for the conditions that are vital for about 0.0001% of people who are looking for a database. For everyone else who is looking for a database solution PostGres, MySQL etc might just be worth a look in.

Drop Column

[farnsworth]

Drop Column
PostgreSQL now supports the ALTER TABLE ... DROP COLUMN functionality.

HURRAY! this has been my biggest annoyance with postgresql since I've started using it. there are workarounds for older versions, but they become arduous when you have a lot of existing data.

this is a *very welcomed* implementation.

Re:Dropping Columns finally supported

[zulux]

And you can rename tables and colums on the fly too!

And the default identifier length is 63! ForReallyLongAndDescriptingColumnNames!

For all you people out there with Access who think this is old hat - the tables and column renaming and droping can happpen while people are connected to the PostgreSQL database - you don't have to kick anybody off the database.

If you're considering migrating your Aceess database to MS SQL Servier - do consider PostgreSQL. From experience, the amount of suffering is about the same for both transitions, but when your done, PostgrSQL is more robust, less expensive and less buggy.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

mysql is reportedly much easier to install on windows. I wouldn't know, but the few times I've had to install PostGRE on windows boxes for other teammembers it HAS been a nightmare.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if people still insist on using mysql simply because they know how to set it up on their desktop.

I want replication. please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Main feature I've been waiting for replication.

As of a couple of months ago none of the replication options for postgres were any good. Most were unreliable, offered very small features or very hard to set up.

Some looked like they had promise, but were not there.

Please, please, please, add replication to the next release :)

I also wish performance for simple case dbs was faster. eg key value dbs compared to the performance of sleepy cats berkley db.

I'm sure there would be a *lot* of money to be had if someone were to make a good replication system. Possibly releasing it blender styles? Or offering to implement replication for businesses for a fee?

Perhaps one of the postgres groups could ask for donations from some of us users so some developers could work on it full time. I know I could easily convince my boss to cough up for it. Almost any business that relies on postgres could be convinced to chip in I think.

OORDBMS?

[delmoi]

I remember playing around with Postgres a while ago and looking at the supposed OO features, and quite frankly they didn't seem very impressive at all. Basicaly just 'inheritance' of table structures. I mean... Color me underwhelmed. I can't think of a single reason why you would need this.

It didn't have nearly the same kind of features of true OODBs, What exactly is the use for Postgres's OOness?

Re:Er, not really

[ruckc]

Wrong my friend, it isn't a toy. I have successfully used it many times over the past year and a half for a multitude of things, yes it lacks features, but guess what, who really gives a hoot. I can do everything i need to with it, and i use it in critical places, because guess what fellas, its fast, and I prefer to work around its lackings than put up with PostgreSQL that has never been anything but a headache.

Re:Dropping Columns finally supported

[JourneymanMereel]

If you're considering migrating your Aceess database to MS SQL Servier - do consider PostgreSQL. From experience, the amount of suffering is about the same for both transitions, but when your done, PostgrSQL is more robust, less expensive and less buggy.

OK, you've got my attention. This is something I hope to do more of in the future and being that you have some expirience, I'd like to ask a couple questions...

1. I recently did an Access to MS SQL conversion and ended up with an access database in .adp format which contained the connection string to the SQL server and required no ODBC setup on the clinet PC's. Is this similar in Postgre?
2. In that conversion, the .adp file contained the forms, reports, and macros. The queries from the old access db were stored on the server either as views or Stored Procedures. Is this also similar (or at least compatible)?
3. MS SQL allows you to use your current windows credentials as the authentication to the SQL server. This is nice because then the users don't have to enter/remember another password. Can I do this in Postgre?
4. I've found that Access generates absolutely horrid SQL. Fortunately, because all these queries are stored on the SQL server, they can be edited/optimized after the conversion. This question ends up being a two-parter. How compatible is Postre with Access' ugly SQL? And if there's a compatability problem with the generated SQL, can I at least edit it server side and make access not care that that's happened?

I'm sure there's more issues I'd run accross, but this is all I can think of setting on my couch during my extended weekend away from work :)

Related question re. Database development

[cute-boy]

This is slightly off-topics but anyway...

There have been some references to msAccess here, what I like about Access is the ease I can build an ad hoc database application (but where the data could be reused easily should there be a later requirement).

While Postgres sounds great, I want to know if there are and tools that approach this ease of development, within a linux environment. Ability to choose the back-end database would be a huge plus - I'd certainly give Postgres a go.

RG

Re:Er, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

* No subselects
* No SELECT INTO TABLE
* No stored procedures and triggers
* No Foreign Keys (!!)

InnoDb provides foreign keys.

* No views
* No -- as a comment parameter

Is this important? But -- works fine for comments.

Making The Switch?

[suwain_2]

I'm surprised this hasn't been asked yet...

Just today I found a need (not a chance to use, but a *need*) for a subquery. While contemplating copying and pasting (it's only like 30 rows) data between database tables, I happened to see this article.

How easy is it to switch over from MySQL to PostgreSQL? Is there a simple tool to convert between the two? (And as a sidenote... The machine I want to do this on is a third-hand computer, a 300 MHz, 128 MB RAM webserver... Am I going to notice a performance hit if I put PostgreSQL on it?)

Re:Making The Switch?

[imroy]

Zachary Beane of GIMP fame, has a MySQL to PostgreSQL migration page with a Perl script and some advice.

I stand corrected

[ttfkam]

on the concurrancy issue. But once again, what if the update fails halfway through? How do you know which records have been updated and which still need updating?

Going to add and drop a temporary column?

With PostgreSQL (and any other ACID database), that same SQL you wrote is atomic. It either works completely or not at all. No special keywords. No extra steps. It just works.

When it's that easy in PostgreSQL, why would you use MySQL? Note that this is a write operation; Don't assume that MySQL is faster.

Re:I stand corrected

[ttfkam]

Simpler to install? It comes packaged by default in RedHat. For Debian, it's apt-get install postgresql. For a source install, it's ./configure;make;make install. Please explain to me how MySQL is easier.

Simpler? When you need to get a job done, you either have a simple database or a simple app. The amount of logic is the same.

If Joe Newbie doesn't need views, Joe Newbie doesn't have to use views. ...or rules, triggers, explicit transactions, or any of the other things that PostgreSQL can do that MySQL can't. It's not like PostgreSQL mandates the use of every feature.

On the other hand, Joe Newbie shouldn't need to learn about explicit locks, database integrity issues, workarounds because a feature isn't there, etc.

pg_dump is indeed required whenever a minor or major version change happens. That happens once a year or so. It's not like it happens once a week. And of course, that assumes that you upgrade according to PostgreSQL's release schedule. Why you would do that, I have no idea. More likely, you are upgrading/replacing the database box so you would have to dump the data no matter what software you were using.

If the version and hardware configuration are working well, why would you change anything (other than apply patches) by default?

As far as cheap hosting, that's fine. If the hosting company I have to work with has IIS, I'll be using asp won't I? An abundant option isn't necessarily better. It's just more abundant. Going from computer to computer, you're more likely to find Windows 98 than any other operating system. Does that mean it's better? Indeed, sometimes you have to use suboptimal tools to get the job done. This doesn't mean that you have to seek those suboptimal tools out.

If your data doesn't matter as much to you, it doesn't much matter what solution you choose or from whom you get your hosting. If you value your data, why not show it?

If you're hosting your own database machine -- not exactly a rare occurance -- and PostgreSQL and MySQL (and SAP DB and Firebird) cost the same, why on Earth would you choose MySQL?

MySQL is NOT easier to install in my experience. So why choose MySQL?

MySQL is less feature-rich. So why choose MySQL?

MySQL is not significantly faster. Is this why you choose MySQL?

MySQL cannot enforce data integrity.

Need I go on? If crappy hosting is MySQL's only ace in the hole, it's in more dire straights than I had originally thought. As far as I see, the biggest reason to stick with MySQL is that if you've spent too much development time with it (written app logic that the database sould've already handled), it would be too much trouble to switch.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How good is the JDBC driver these days

[matsh]

Does it support the latest JDBC standard, and does it work fine under heavy load?