Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Josh Berkus of PostgreSQL
SilentBob4 writes "The PostgreSQL database project has recently released Version 8.0, which was received with quite some fanfare, mostly due to its first-ever Windows port. Mad Penguin talked with Josh Berkus, one of the core team members, to find out how 8.0 has fared since its official release on January 17, 2005. Full interview."
Ever since I started using transactions in pgsql, I haven't looked back to mysql land. All I now need is the Postgres-R (replication) stuff to work out of the box (like it does for mysql). I don't know if transaction speeds might be hit by replication or not.
Also great win32 installer - thank god the pgsql jdbc components aren't GPL. (it's a thin edge of the wedge to get it used for in house projects).Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
All I now need is the Postgres-R (replication) stuff to work out of the box (like it does for mysql).
Look into Slony. It's an addon project, but replication for PostgreSQL will always be an addon so that it works across multiple backend versions.
It's fairly straight forward to setup a master/slave scenario, and PgAdmin is currently working on GUI tools for managing it.
Rod Taylor
All I now need is the Postgres-R (replication) stuff to work out of the box (like it does for mysql).
Don't bother with Postgres-R -- use Slony. It works fantastically well.
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
From TFA: I think that the thing that lots of open source projects have learned, and that those that haven't should learn, is the simple fact that millions of people use Windows, and millions of people use only Windows. If you don't have a port to that platform, you have denied them access to your project.
I think this is interesting. Now, I'm no PostgreSQL cheerleader, but they're certainly one of the top open source projects going around. It seems to me that if the PostgreSQL team had leveraged their position and spent more time developing for open operating systems, businesses would be given the incentive to switch. Instead, they've chosen to accomodate the enterprise windows crowd. Of course, this will be great for their marketshare. But it just seems like a missed opportunity given the bigger picture.
After all, I am strangely colored.
There are fatal flaws in this version of 8.0 that makes it practically unusable in Win32 for me.
Firstly, the broken Unicode support, which arose because certain collation functions doesn't work well on UTF-8 (PostGre uses UTF-8, Win32 prefers UCS-2). The tone you get from reading the bug/support forums are disdainful, pointing the problem to Win32 libraries and suggesting that it should not be in the confines of the PostGres team to fix Windows bugs. Nevertheless, if they already put so much effort to porting to Win32, it seems strange that they are adopting such a stance instead of proactively trying to fix that problem.
Secondly, there is no support for the Win1252 code page, which is very commonly used in English Windows, while mind-bogglingly, there seem to be all other code-pages from Cyrillic to Arabic. This makes migration of data from SQL Server very difficult, and using Latin-1 doesn't help when it encounters characters like `. Yes, Windows should be whacked on the bottom for introducing such shitty incompatibilities but that doesn't solve the problem. The other solution to this problem - to convert to UTF-8 instead - is unavailable because of first problem.
I have been trying to persuade my company to shift from SQL Server to PostGreSQL on Windows (for some reasons, we cannot move over to Linux yet). But after hitting these brick walls - I've giving up. Here's to hoping!
mostly due to its first-ever Windows port.
No, PostgreSQL has been working on Windows for years. This was just the first version where Windows was an officially supported platform.
> thank god the pgsql jdbc components aren't GPL.
> (it's a thin edge of the wedge to get it used for
> in house projects)
Please read the GPL.
In house projects are NOT considered as redistribution of the code, so you can keep your changes for yourself.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
If it's in-house, can't you use GPLed software for whatever you want? So long as you don't try to redistribute the in-house software(gratis or for payment) without the sourcecode, why would the GPL make any difference?
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
You have got to be kidding. Those "fatal flaws" are nothing compared to MySQL "gotchas." Talk about bias...
I would like to use this opportunity to say this: Kudos to Josh Berkus and the entire PostgreSQL team! I hope you are reading this. You have done an absolutely amazing job with your database. It is the only Free Software RDBMS that I believe can be compared with Oracle. This is hardly the first Free Software RDBMS I used but it is the first one that actually works as it should, respecting standards and relational model with full ACID support (*cough*cough*). This is also the fastest Free Software database when you are doing any serious inserts/updates-heavy transactions on large data sets with consistency being the top priority. Kudos! You guys rule! I believe that your project should be a de facto standard in Free Software world. Keep up the good work.
It sure feels like a first port...
I consider myself to a competent developer with some SQL skills and bit of DBA knowledge albeit mainly in MSSQLServer.
The PostgreSQL 8.0 for windows installation process was very difficult and ultimately unsuccessful. Anyone who uses the Win platform for development will reject PostgreSQL like I did due to difficult getting it up an running.
I am looking forward to PostgreSQL maturing relative to the windows port. Let's hope the team feels the same way!!
I have seen that there seems to be a buzz around Postgresql over the last few months. More and more people are requesting Postgresql in web hosting. It seems that this is not a substitution for MS SQL but people are migrating from MySQL to Postgresql for one reason or another. Granted this is just one perspective from a web host and not scientifically significant.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Doesn't matter, the perception is that GPL is limiting redistribution (which it is, even if you are right). If you want choice in the matter (and most companies do), the GPL is not for you. Example, you have a bunch of propietary extensions to some GPL project and you are using it internally (so far so good you say). Then some partner company asks for permission to use your tool. You don't say no to friends so you want to give the software to them. Price is not the issue but opening up the proprietary stuff is. The GPL forces you to choose here and that is a very sound reason to not touch any GPL software that you want to extend.
Of course it is no argument to not use GPL software at all. GPL software is a key component of my development tool chain as I am sure it is for many others. And of course it is no argument against working on GPL projects either. It's not even an argument against the GPL. It's just that other licenses are a bit more flexible in what you can and cannot do. Many companies want this flexibility.
Jilles
Take your anti-GPL FUD and stuff it.
MySQL supports transactions http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/transactional-c
What a funny use of "friends"--it's okay to leverage one's power to exclude some "friends" from inspecting, distributing, or building further on an improved PostgreSQL, but it's bad to keep other "friends" from linking a GPL-derivative with GPL-incompatibly licensed programs.
Perhaps more organizations should learn who their real friends are and pay for the program under a free software license so they can build on the GPL'd programs they wish and distribute their improved versions. What's remarkable about all this in the context of PostgreSQL is that the companies doing work with PostgreSQL cited in this interview (and some other consultants I know of) make their money from selling PostgreSQL-related services.
The GPL doesn't deny anyone "choice". One must choose to distribute the work; one should choose to comply with the licensing terms under which the work is made available to them particularly because they're so generous. The GPL places conditions on distribution so that nobody can exert power to restrict what receipients can do with the software down the line. It's funny how the concept of share-and-share-alike is so easily perverted into something limiting when software is viewed through the false dichotomy of being either a gift to society (as PostgreSQL is) or proprietary.
Digital Citizen
No, thanks.
It's my professional secret since 1820.
And, why not to Redmond's Microsoft?