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."

20 of 55 comments (clear)

  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
  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 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.
  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.
  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 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. 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?

  8. 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".

  9. 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
  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. 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!