Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interview With The PostgreSQL Team

Posted by timothy on from the glamor-and-decadence dept.

Gentu writes "OSNews features an interview with some members of the PostgreSQL team regarding the much needed replication feature, their competition to MySQL, their future plans and a "native" Windows/.NET port."

55 comments

  1. Replication and load-balancing by SpaFF · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait until PostgreSQL has these features. Once that happens Oracle will have to run and hide. Yeah I know a ton of people will reply to this saying that Postgres doesn't have nearly the feature set of Oracle and the like, but I think for 90% of people that need a fault-tolerant database the featureset of Postgres is more than enough.

    --
    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
    1. Re:Replication and load-balancing by Zapman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do people use oracle?

      1) It's hyper expensive
      2) the support organization is far from fantastic
      3) It requires expensive talent to maintain

      The answer to all of these issues is 'Name recognition'. Joe Average has at least heard of Oracle. CEO's and CIO's associate it with quality.

      Currently, for 'high end' databases where 'high end' is defined by either CEO's or serious amounts of data, Oracle and DB2 (nee UDB or Universal Data Base) are wins.

      To a corperation, nothing is more important than their data. If it can't be protected by a name they trust (whether or not that trust is misplaced) it will not penetrate the DataCenter.

      --
      Zapman
    2. Re:Replication and load-balancing by darkov · · Score: 2

      Why do people use oracle?

      Beacuse they have a large, aggressive sales force and extensive marketting.

      --
      Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
    3. Re:Replication and load-balancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's because they need replication and load-balancing, as the original parent poster mentioned? Insightful my ass, if you'd ever even been in the same room with a high-volume high-availability database you'd know why people use Oracle instead of the junky free databases.

    4. Re:Replication and load-balancing by ChannelX · · Score: 1

      Have you actually used Oracle?

      1: Yes...Oracle is expensive. You get what you pay for. It is an excellent database.
      2: Oracle *database* support is the finest support group I have ever dealt with...*period*. Their other groups leave something to be desired but the people who support the database product know their shit well and all of my issues have been resolved quickly.
      3: Bullshit. Especially with the release of 8i R3 and above. It takes less to maintain Oracle with every release. It used to take expensive talent to maintain in the past. That is not necessarily true now (I know...I've been maintaining Oracle databases since 8.0.5).

      --
      My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
  2. three line summary by PSwim · · Score: 5, Informative

    Being an avid PostgreSQL user, I was hoping for some interesting information in this article. Silly me.

    The (sadly disappointing) three line summary:

    • Replication is working. Kind of. (no details)
    • PostgreSQL has lots of features.
    • A windows port is scheduled for this summer.

    Am I the only one that things the editors should've rejected this article?

    1. Re:three line summary by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Replication is working. Kind of. (no details)

      Pretty much, and it pisses me off. There are about 5 projects, all in alpha or beta. There is still no official replication, and definitely no production quality replication.

      I've decided I'm just going to have to write an abstraction layer for all database operations that will implement replication.

      Previously, I just did an automated dump/import every hour to the mirrored DB, which is obviously less than optimal. Also, this eventually trashed the mirrored DB (don't know why).

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:three line summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that things the editors should've rejected this article?

      yes
    3. Re:three line summary by nosferatu-man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're using contrib/dbmirror in production, and it works fine, if your definition of fine is "ok". We run the mirroring process every five seconds, and have a few triggers and whatnot written to facilitate a hot-swap failover.

      Our transactional volume isn't high enough yet to cause us problems (less than 30 a minute), but for now, this is ok. I'm tracking the "real" pgreplication stuff, and occasionally take a desultory trip into WAL land, when I can grab a minute.

      'jfb

      --
      To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
    4. Re:three line summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really have anything to ask them (although having replication fully working would and will be great!).

      I just wanted to take this oppertunity to say how much I love PostgreSQL and how much I appreciate the hard work people have put into it.

      I'm not a DBA of any sort. Not really even a programmer. But I needed an SQL server for my auction site (it's just too huge to manage with anything but these days) and after a brief attempt at MySQL, I realized that I would certainly need the transaction and rollback features.

      So I unlearned my MySQL habits and jumped to PostgreSQL. Except for the incredibly difficult time I had getting it installed and configured, the rest was a breeze. In fact, I have found it to be one of the nicest applications anywhere, for any purpose, period.

      Now, if I had the budget, maybe Oracle or something would technically be better (I have no idea, I'm not a DBA!). But I am still very pleased with this package. For the price I paid (free!) it's wonderful.

      The only complaint I could possibly have at the moment is that the installation and configuration (especially if you want to add some security) is incredibly difficult. I managed it once after a LONG time. But then I didn't have to install again for more than a year. WHen I had to do a new installation, I had forgotten everything and spend days doing it from scratch again.

      Anyway, I know this sounds like a fanboy post - and I guess it is. So sue me. But keep that great postgresql comin'. I have no plans to switch to another db package.

      And so those MySQL geeks don't think I'm too biased, I _do_ like MySQL. It has a lot of neat features and some nice things about it. It's great if you're just setting up a database for a regular site (say, a slashdot) or a message board. And now that it handles transactions, it's probably good for just about anything. But I still think I woudl reccommend that if anyone wanted to use an SQL package these days, they should take the small learning curve and apply it to PostgreSQL. It's a pay off in the long run. Also, it's a real bitch to comprehend a lot of PostgreSQL/standard SQL stuff if you learned with MySQL first and then have to unlearn all that shit (but not impossible -- I did it!).

    5. Re:three line summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are about 5 projects, all in alpha or beta. There is still no official replication, and definitely no production quality replication.

      The thing your forgetting is that there *are* commercial replication solutions available if you *really* need that functionality.

      Otherwise the beta solutions are usable, and someone on the mailing lists has worked out a solution with LVM iirc.

  3. Great work for their niche by mnmn · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I've been trying to learn Postgre's useage and try it on production systems. I started out with the MySQL that the developers were sarcastic about, but realized the very different applications that need databases.. Ever since, I've been delving into db3 for lower end data management (for dbase-replacement apps) and Postgresql for higher end.

    I dont think its fair to compare Postgre with MySQL. Postgres developers work so hard to point at their features, but not all web backends require transactions or even subqueries. The basic Postgresql installation is a bit of a pain to get up and running with a basic database, which keeps pushing new users to MySQL, and the feature list gets repulsive there too.. But for applications like managing the .ORG tld registry, MySQL would not be preferred.

    I like to think Postgre as a middle to large-scale database, with DB2 and Oracle taking the 'large' end of the spectrum and mysql,minisql and the sleepycat way of dealing with data, at the 'small' end. Mysql's niche happens to be at a sweet spot where developers seek ease, speed, simplicity and functionality with PHP, Perl, C and scripts.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Great work for their niche by foosnarf · · Score: 3, Informative

      yeah, mySQL is great until you want to move your code over to another system (oracle, db2, scale scale scale). then you realize that they aren't doing you any favors with their crappy built-in types like autonumber which don't translate into anything like the sql standard and lack of query flexibility (no subselects? wtf?!).

      mySQL is fine for diddly "select content from blah where id=$SOMENUM" web apps, but the syntax is seriously idiosyncratic. it's like when you program under MFC and you spend all your time on TechNet - when i have to program mySQL i write queries that i think are good and then pick through them with the online documentation until they parse. i find the syntax of postgres much more orthogonal - to go back to the autonumber example above, the equivalent datatype in postgres is the serial, which creates an integer column and a sequence object which can then be operated on just like any other objects of those types. autonumber in mySQL is some kind of ugly data type unto itself, and mySQL makes it hard to do things like manipulate the sequence.

    2. Re:Great work for their niche by FroMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The basic Postgresql installation is a bit of a pain to get up and running with a basic database, which keeps pushing new users to MySQL, [snip]

      Hmmm, even one of the developers in the article seemed to think that, which I didn't get.

      For myself I found setting up postgresql to be a cinch. It was basically an initdb, if I remember right, then createdb. One of those commands needed a path for the data. Then you run pg_ctl start. Once the database was created and started you use psql to login and create users with permissions, which I'd assume has to be done on any database. Then create tables and go at it.

      That was for setting up my home setup. I think I needed to edit one file to setup security for logins on remote hosts which was pretty self explaintory.

      The hardest part was finding a jdbc driver, which didn't take too long. I found one that claimed to be better than the one that came with postgresql and droppped the .jar in the classpath and tada, instant database.

      All said and done, just setting up and getting running probably takesless than two hours. And that was starting from emerge postgres.

      Certainly its not like oracle and all enterprise like and what not, but it was sure a heck of a lot easier to setup.

      Compared to mysql? I dunno, I'd rate it about as easy. I've setup mysql before, but it still didn't seem a clean a setup to me. That might just be me though.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    3. Re:Great work for their niche by mnmn · · Score: 1

      It was basically an initdb, if I remember right, then createdb. One of those commands needed a path for the data. Then you run pg_ctl start. Once the database was created and started you use psql to login and create users with permissions, which I'd assume has to be done on any database. Then create tables and go at it.
      </i>

      Seems easy after youre well-versed with it, just like MySQL, so I should assume MySQL is easier.
      But most new users use mysql, and thats not just a community momentum. MySQLs simplicity is its strength in THAT niche. I knew some theory about databases before I first powered up MySQL.. but the preliminary docs were so understandable. Much later now, handling some serious data, I can see and measure the benefits of Postgre against it, but I couldnt before I first ran my first relational database.

      Believe me I tried Postgre first, but quickly gave up. The newsgroups said it was a better DBMS, but the docs, and the setup later was such a headache for someone who didnt even know SQL yet.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    4. Re:Great work for their niche by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I found creating a db to be as easy. The psql buffer editor/front-end does a great job of explaining everything verbosely as well.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    5. Re:Great work for their niche by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Nope...

      This was cold introduction to postgresql. Then on the postgresql site I found a link to this: Practical PostgreSQL.

      Now, I am familar with setting up different databases, but postgresql to me was very easy. My experience with mysql has been similar, but it didn't seem as clean to me as postgresql.

      For a real nightmare setup either firebird. Not a whit of documentation for that database.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    6. Re:Great work for their niche by lewiscr · · Score: 1

      I agree that MySQL's version of SQL isn't very portable. But if you're going to be picky, at least pick a good example.

      CREATE TABLE foo (
      id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
      bar CHAR(50) NOT NULL DEFAULT ''
      )

      How exactly is id "some kind of ugly data type unto itself"?

      I usually make my id's BIGINT UNSIGNED, but most people don't need 2^64 keys.

      Now, it you want bastard hacks, how about 'REPLACE INTO ...' instead of 'DELETE FROM ...; INSERT INTO ...'. All because MySQL only recently got commit/rollback. Although I've started to become fond of 'DROP TABLE IF EXISTS foo'

  4. Competition by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For guys who consider Oracle and other commerical RDBMS their competition, they sure seemed to enjoy pointing out the faults of MySQL.

    In my opinion, OSS needs to be more friendly to each other. If one project lacks features, don't bash them, what's the point? Just focus on your own project, and leave other people alone, especially if they're bashing you too. So what if MySQL has a marketing department. The internet was supposed to be about exchanging ideas, not bashing other people's ideas.

    1. Re:Competition by LarryRiedel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For guys who consider Oracle and other commerical RDBMS their competition, they sure seemed to enjoy pointing out the faults of MySQL.
      I think the connotation was that technologically MySQL(*) does not compete with PostgreSQL, not that PostgreSQL is not an alternative product.

      In my opinion, OSS needs to be more friendly to each other. If one project lacks features, don't bash them, what's the point?
      If PostgreSQL is underrated and underappreciated, I think the calling attention to its relative strengths is fair. Also, I think the licensing of MySQL(*) makes it a qualitatively different kind of "OSS" from PostgreSQL

      Larry

      * MySQL is a trademark of MySQL AB in the United States and other countries.

  5. .NET thing is just an API bridge by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

    and a "native" Windows/.NET port."

    er, not quite

    Robert: Plus we already have a .net data provider project for connecting to PostgreSQL via .Net.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:.NET thing is just an API bridge by foosnarf · · Score: 2, Informative

      please read the article.

      Josh: You have me at a bit of a disadvantage, since I'm used to comparing PostgreSQL to proprietary-commercial databases, who I regard as our "real" competition. I don't know that much about SAP-DB and Firebird beyond their literature on their websites.

      The only features that we lack which some other FOSS databases have are the ones you mention in questions 1 & 2. Oh, and our native Windows version is due out this summer.

      (emphasis mine)
  6. MySQL subselects by Wonko42 · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the interview:

    "We had transaction support 10 years before MySQL, mainframe ports 2 years before MySQL, and support for all types of subselects for the last 2 years, which MySQL still doesn't have working."

    What's this? MySQL 4.1, released early this month, supports subselects.

    1. Re:MySQL subselects by jpkunst · · Score: 1

      MySQL 4.1 is still in alpha. The current stable version is 4.0.12.

      JP

    2. Re:MySQL subselects by Wonko42 · · Score: 1
      "MySQL 4.1 is still in alpha. The current stable version is 4.0.12"

      What, do alpha versions not count? Perhaps I misread the rules. The quote implied that MySQL still didn't have working subselects, and that's not true. They do have working subselects.

    3. Re:MySQL subselects by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Sure, you go ahead and install an alpha-quality database in your production environment. Let me know in a few days how well those subselects are holding up for you.

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    4. Re:MySQL subselects by Wonko42 · · Score: 1
      Again, I don't recall anyone saying that MySQL didn't have subselects working in a production-ready release. What was said was that they didn't have subselects working. Period. And that statement is false. I wonder how many times I have to say this before the meaning gets across.

      Coincidentally, I do happen to be using the MySQL 4.1 alpha in a production environment, and it's holding up just fine.

    5. Re:MySQL subselects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about foreign keys?

    6. Re:MySQL subselects by TheFuzzy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wonko,

      You're still wrong. The quote was "ALL KINDS of subselects". This would include subselects in the SELECT, FROM, WHERE and HAVING clauses, as well as correlated subselects and sub-subselects.

      MySQL supports as "sub-set" of this.

      -Josh

    7. Re:MySQL subselects by lewiscr · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to get 3.23 to run without hanging. It appears that MySQL has some deadlock issues on 64 bit processors. I see it on Sparcs and they're haivng issues with Itanium2. 3.23.56 may have finally fixed this bug that I reported over 2 years ago. Not for lack of trying, but who the hell runs MySQL on a Sun cluster backed by a SAN? Er, besides me.

      Now that 4.0 is officially stable, I'm willing to give it a go. I'll make it part of the next release cycle. If it makes it through a couple months on development, then I'll roll it out.

      Since I pay MySQL for support, I'll trust their judgement on what consitutes "production" quality code. It's all about the blame.

    8. Re:MySQL subselects by cjpez · · Score: 1
      What, do alpha versions not count?
      (I'm kind of jumping around in the thread here, but...)
      Well. *no,* alpha versions don't count. You can't justify installing alpha-quality databases to your boss. You can't justify the use of an alpha-quality database to the head honchos of your company when things go horribly wrong and your data is irrevocably ruined. You can't justify using an alpha-quality database when your ecommerce site is down for extended periods of time because some obscure bug has forced you to spend time talking with the developers and patching your source.

      I'm not saying that these things never happen for software that has been deemed "production-worthy," but in that case you actually have some legs to stand on. Of course you installed it, it was production quality! If you're willing to risk your data with pre-production software, or your data isn't important enough to worry about, then by all means, use the alpha subselects.

      When I can go to The Management and say, "I'm going to install this released, production-ready database" and have subselect support, then I'll consider it released, but not until then.

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    9. Re:MySQL subselects by Wonko42 · · Score: 1
      I'll try saying this one last time, and this is it.

      The quote mentioned nothing about released versions. The quote said specifically that MySQL did not have working subselect support. It did not say anything about released subselect support. Therefore, no matter what your opinions are on whether alpha versions of software are "real" or not, the MySQL team has implemented working subselects, and you'll note that that is exactly what I said in my initial comment. If you're reading anything else into it, that's your problem.

      The end.

    10. Re:MySQL subselects by Wonko42 · · Score: 1

      Touché. I initially interpreted"all kinds" as meaning "a lot", whereas he may have meant "every kind". So you probably have a valid point.

    11. Re:MySQL subselects by cjpez · · Score: 1
      The quote said specifically that MySQL did not have working subselect support.
      MySQL does not have working subselect support. Steps to reproduce:
      1. Download the most recent MySQL. I do not mean the latest alpha-quality not-to-be-used-for-anything-REAL version. The most recent MySQL.
      2. Observe the lack of subselects.
      If you're reading anything else into it, that's your problem.

      The end.

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    12. Re:MySQL subselects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I do happen to be using the MySQL 4.1 alpha in a production environment, and it's holding up just fine.

      And that, in a nutshell, is why you are a MySQL user, numb-nuts. Go buy a database book.

    13. Re:MySQL subselects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit dude. You think that your fucking point is worth writing over and over and over . . . just so that you can get the last word. SHUT THE FUCK UP

  7. PostgreSQL to redefine databases by jgardn · · Score: 1

    I love using PostgreSQL. It is great, stable, easy to use, and the feature set is wonderfully large.

    It also has the same feeling that Linux did in its earlier days. PostgreSQL is unstoppable, and will one day be the only database worth using just like Linux is going to be the only Unix kernel worth using one day.

    You can see how it is growing exponentially, and there is nothing that can stop it. It feels great to get on board because you know things are only going to get better.

    As far as MySQL goes, I have nothing against it. I grew up on Sybase and Oracle systems, so picking up PostgreSQL was easy as pie. I still haven't had enough motivation or time to pick up MySQL idiosyncracies. And I just don't see a future with MySQL or any other database like I see with PostgreSQL.

    PostgreSQL just has that magical feeling about it that is pretty rare for any piece of software. It just feels good using it. It just feels right.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:PostgreSQL to redefine databases by mhesseltine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Emphasis mine:

      As far as MySQL goes, I have nothing against it. I grew up on Sybase and Oracle systems, so picking up PostgreSQL was easy as pie. I still haven't had enough motivation or time to pick up MySQL idiosyncracies. And I just don't see a future with MySQL or any other database like I see with PostgreSQL.

      This, I think, is the key point. For those who have database experience, PostgreSQL is a fine database product. For those with no previous database experience, the power and terse nature of PostgreSQL is a hinderance.

      I think that MySQL has done a better job of making an easy "starter" RDBMS. Is it the best thing on the planet? Probably not. If you start using MySQL and decide you're beating your head against the wall to do some particular thing, should you consider switching to PostgreSQL? Absolutely. Could the PostgreSQL people make it easier to start with? Sure.

      --
      Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
    2. Re:PostgreSQL to redefine databases by lowmagnet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Terse? Not really. I find PostgreSQL's shell to be far easier to connect to and use than mySQL's shell. Indeed, PostgreSQL has *very* verbose help, which is a major bonus during development. I can find nothing terse about it. I couldn't figure out mySQL, but PostgreSQL's documentation got me up and running in about 10 minutes.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
  8. Simple, so simple by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    but not all web backends require transactions or even subqueries.
    And not all DBMS apps are web backends! ;)

    But here's what puzzles me: if you don't need complicated queries (and I'm told MySql takes a serious performance hit even with something as simple as multi-field primary keys), why bother with a relational DBMS at all? Why not use a simple indexed record engine, like Berkeley DB?

    1. Re:Simple, so simple by mnmn · · Score: 1

      Funny my other window has exactly that... sleepycat.com. The close niches of larger and smaller apps... to MySQL are PostgreSQL and db3. mSQL is smaller still, I would have gone with it if I had discovered it first.

      Like most web app developers, I started with the easy and nimble MySQL, and then spread the experience to cover the rest.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    2. Re:Simple, so simple by rubinson · · Score: 1

      But here's what puzzles me: if you don't need complicated queries...why bother with a relational DBMS at all? Why not use a simple indexed record engine, like Berkeley DB?

      Precisely. As someone who does database development for a living, it's my view that databases are way overused nowadays, especially with regard to websites. People are seduced by the power and flexibility of RDBMSs, but the vast majority of sites simply don't require them. If you're simply serving up the same articles over and over again, there's no reason to hit a db everytime.

      This trend holds for applications (and general data storage) as well. People's first instinct is often to look to a relational backend when tab delimited ASCII would work just fine (and be more portable, to boot).

  9. What the Fuck? by Moosbert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm Peter Eisentraut, I'm quoted in this article, but I never knew I was doing an "interview".

  10. Open-source database replication by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Informative



    Matt Dillon of FreeBSD fame (no, not the actor) has a new startup called Backplane. They are creating a replicated, distributed SQL database and it's open-source. It's not PostgreSQL, but it sounds like an interesting technology.

    --
    cpeterso
  11. Postgrsql real-time backup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run a postgresql database at the heart of my auction site. I want to maintain current snapshots of my database so that if anything goes wrong, I will have a secure, reliable, full copy of the database somewhere else that we can jump back to if the server ever dies.

    The problem is, it is a stand-alone server. I don't have the money or space for a second server dedicated to backups. So these backups have to go off-site (or possibly they could be moved to another machine on the same network if I can talk an acuaintance into allowing that).

    In other words, if the server goes down or the drives go haywire (running *hardware* RAID 5), I want a copy of the database somewhere. And I want it to be as fresh as possible. I don't want to have to regress to the copy from 24 hours prior. Even an hour prior may be too long.

    The database itself is about 1.5gb and grows at an average of 200mb per month.

    I'm not a DBA. I'm not a professional web admin. In fact, my area of expertise is nowhere near web or database related. So can anyone suggest some PostgreSQL-able solution to my problem? Thanks if you can!

    1. Re:Postgrsql real-time backup? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Interesting... PIT isn't available yet, but gets closer with each day.

      A workable solution is to start a second copy of PostgreSQL on the same box (different port), but initdb to cheap disk (Mirror of IDE drives would be perfect).

      Use Master / Slave replication (contrib/dbmirror) to copy data from one set to the other. If you have serious disk ussues, shutdown both daemons, fix the raid array, copy the data directory from your mirror to the RAID5 array, and keep on going.

      For 1.5 GB this should give you a recovery time of a few minutes (plus hardware fiddling).

      --
      Rod Taylor
  12. What's a "postgre"? by merlyn · · Score: 1
    ... postgre's .... postgre ... postgre ...
    What in the heck is a "postgre"? The name of the software is "PostgreSQL", pronounced "post gre skew ell". The "SQL part" is not separable.
    --
    1. Re:What's a "postgre"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for clearing up this vitally important issue.

  13. Convenience by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    I allready have a mysql db for free from my host, and it's faster to code for. I get few enough hits that performance is hardly an issue.

    --
    Photos.
  14. why worry about replication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    postgresql is a toy, why worry about things like replication when it can't even do hot backup!

  15. What? No questions about a better name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? No questions about a better name?

  16. why oracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darkov wrote: Why do people use oracle? Beacuse they have a large, aggressive sales force and extensive marketting. "use of Oracle may scale technologically, but it doesn't scale financially"