Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Em 06/09/2012 02:34, Chris Travers escreveu: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.com mailto:edsonrich...@hotmail.com wrote: Em 05/09/2012 23:49, Chris Travers escreveu: Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. This kind of claim is just to feed flame wars. Don't think I need to state that a db developer becomes a app developer as soon as he start to develop any database server code, right? I don't mean it that way. Ok, understood. My point here was just to return focus to the main question, and avoid feed the trolls :-) The basic thing is that MySQL's view of data integrity is extremely application centric. Even today, applications get to tell the server whether to throw an error when you try to insert -00-00 into a date field (this is via the sql_mode setting and admins can't restrict what an app can do there). MySQL makes perfect sense when you are an application developer looking at the database as a place to store information for your own private use. In essence, MySQL makes perfect sense when you realize that my = private in OO terms. Yes, I agree. Nothing professional can run this way, but for personal purposes, you can even call access, dbf or Isis txt format a database. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if that's what you are using it for, and because of ways the db market has developed there are a huge number of developers who are very happy with a lowest common denominator RDBMS where you can assume one app writing to the db (or at least any given relation), and possibly other apps reading. In short if you want an easy db to port SQL code that was intended to be portable to, MySQL is the RDBMS for you. For people who want to avoid putting business logic in the db, and want to put all the API's for interoperability and integration in their app logic, it's a good RDBMS. In fact, I can't actually think of better. This is *especially true* if you want to make it dangerous for other apps to write to the db, perhaps in order to say this is not supported and ask people to purchase more client access licenses Actually, for web based applications, developers are forced to add validation at several levels. But is still database responsibility to accept or reject the data that will persist for a lifetime (sometimes less). MySQL behavior that seems incorrect is not necessarily incorrect in that context. It's a data store for one app to write to and optionally other apps to read from. The app can be trusted to not do crazy things with sql_mode settings or the like, and if it does, whatever the app tells the db is correct behavior, the db is supposed to do. It is incorrect in a way to by the MySQL behavior, data will get corrupt in a very short of time, I know because I tried with application that run perfectly well in PostgreSQL and get corrupt in a very short of time when using MySQL. The same statement is true for Access and DBF in any multi user scenario. PostgreSQL on the other hand has been engineered from the beginning (as I understand it) with the idea that you have multiple applications writing to the same relations. So a lot of the things like sql_mode settings, which are great for porting applications to MySQL, would be dangerous in a PostgreSQL context. The relations are a public API, while in MySQL they are at least semi-private. Additionally from the beginning you have had a very strong emphasis on being able to do advanced data modelling in PostgreSQL perhaps to an extent even today unparalleled elsewhere. If you are going to do db-level programming in PostgreSQL, you shouldn't IMO think like an application developer but rather like a database developer. What I am getting at is that if you are an app developer looking at databases, MySQL looks fine, and the warts more or less match how you would tend to think a db should act anyway. If you are a db developer, PostgreSQL tries hard where we all agree on correct db behavior to do the right thing without respect to what the app might have intended. On the other hand, this is mostly a platform for data modelling, and if you are an app developer a lot of things will seem weird in that context until you get used to it. Like it or not, the perspectives are very different. If all you want is an information store for your app with reporting capabilities, then you end up with a different solution then if you want to manage data in a centralized way. Of course. But remember that writing wrong applications is wrong by design, and its cause are the wrong decisions. The main problem is the people behind and its behavior, not the role they play. Remember that there is not software
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Ondrej Ivanič ondrej.iva...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, On 5 September 2012 12:14, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. snip Not only this but there was significant interest in moving more db's to PostgreSQL, but the big limitation is that everyone who knows PostgreSQL already has a job. Some shops are going opposite way -- from PostgreSQL to MySQL like databases because of missing replication features. The 9.1 caught up but there is no multi-master replication like in Percona's XtraDB cluster: http://www.percona.com/software/percona-xtradb-cluster/ Postgres-XC can solve this missing multi-master replication issue but nobody knows that this project exists. Another project is Galera Cluster for PostgreSQL (Galera is used in XtraDB) but this looks like vaporware... To be fair I was speaking specifically of the folks I talked to at MYGOSSCON. The major question was Do we really need Oracle? Also I don't know about others but I have been trying to highlight Postgres-XC wherever it seems appropriate. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Here's a bit of positive news spin - in a backhanded way perhaps, but still a compliment: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/31/postgresql_too_cool_for_school/ Oliver www.agilebase.co.uk -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 19:14:28 -0700 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. I know a bunch of people working for huge sites that love Postgres but use MySQL. The main reason is they build what Postgres is famous for at a higher level and in a more specialized way with their own glue. It's easy to get visibility if you're on the internet and you're huge. But not everyone can rebuild eg. transactions at a higher level and need as much specialized solutions. On the other hand for historical reasons MySQL and PHP have nearly monopolized the hosting space and for many web sites it's hard to appreciate the difference between Postgres and MySQL (unless your DB crash and burn). That's what most people perceive as the mainstream if you don't have a big marketing dept lying. -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Î¤ÎµÏ 05 ΣεÏÏ 2012 10:51:49 Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 19:14:28 -0700 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. I know a bunch of people working for huge sites that love Postgres but use MySQL. The main reason is they build what Postgres is famous for at a higher level and in a more specialized way with their own glue. Postgresql has more meaning in the enterprise than in a web site. Web Content is never critical. The world will keep turning even if some CSS file or some article gets lost. They are meant to be transient any way. They are not part of anything bigger. Postgresql shines whenever data matters. I cannot imagine running our app (single master, 80+ slaves in 80+ vessels in the 7 seas (80+ = 80 and growning)) in mysql. We have not lost a single transaction. We have not had a single integrity issue. All problems were due to our own fault and never postgresql's. Runing a variaty of 7.4 / 8.3 mixture (unfortunately upgrading to 9+ is a very hard task to manage) (now all are on 8.3) we never had any issues. And the servers run unattended, in almost military (marine) conditions, with frequent blackouts, hardware failures due to vibration, disk failures, mother board failures, CPU failures, memory failures. Postgresql just delivered. And the thing is that postgresql really has no rivals either. No competitor when it comes to full-featured OSS RDBMS. There are OSS rdbms (mysql) and full featured rdbms (DB2/Oracle) but none besides pgsql which combines both worlds. Also, as far as extensibility is concerned, postgresql is clearly the king. It's easy to get visibility if you're on the internet and you're huge. But not everyone can rebuild eg. transactions at a higher level and need as much specialized solutions. On the other hand for historical reasons MySQL and PHP have nearly monopolized the hosting space and for many web sites it's hard to appreciate the difference between Postgres and MySQL (unless your DB crash and burn). That's what most people perceive as the mainstream if you don't have a big marketing dept lying. - Achilleas Mantzios IT DEPT -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Achilleas Mantzios ach...@smadev.internal.net wrote: (single master, 80+ slaves in 80+ vessels in the 7 seas (80+ = 80 and growning)) Cool!! How do your nodes communicate with each other? Is it an off-line resynchronization, or do you maintain long-range (satellite?) comms? The system I'm setting up at work kinda pales in comparison to that. It's designed to scale to infinity and beyond (and that quote is kinda appropriate, since we run this all on Debian Linux), but at the moment, all the testing I've done has been on a half-dozen off-the-shelf Dell laptops. But the same applies; we want absolute guaranteed reliability, so we NEED a good database. Postgres all the way! (Plus we need bindings for C++, Pike, and PHP, and I'm a lot happier with Postgres than several other options in that area.) ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Î¤ÎµÏ 05 ΣεÏÏ 2012 23:44:08 Chris Angelico wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Achilleas Mantzios ach...@smadev.internal.net wrote: (single master, 80+ slaves in 80+ vessels in the 7 seas (80+ = 80 and growning)) Cool!! How do your nodes communicate with each other? Is it an off-line resynchronization, or do you maintain long-range (satellite?) comms? Hello, our topology is star-like. The system is based on good ol' UUCP running on top of either ISDN lines or (as of late) over TCP/IP. It is asynchronous and off-line by design. Vessels connect to the central master server and get all their data, receive replication updates, and also send their data to the office (central master cerver). UUCP does the management of the queues (for the unitiated, think of UUCP as something like JMS or AMQP or even better like JMS (API)+AMQP (wire protocol)) The comms (ISDN and TCPIP) are all done of course over a satellite service (very expensive, so compression and minimal data replication were/are and will be major concern) In the case of ISDN, the billing is by time, so clearly this had to fit in the off-line category. In the case of TCPIP, the billing is by data size, but we use that under UUCP just like the ISDN off-line asynchronous mode. Vessels can operate without connection to the office, and vice versa. The system I'm setting up at work kinda pales in comparison to that. It's designed to scale to infinity and beyond (and that quote is kinda appropriate, since we run this all on Debian Linux), but at the moment, all the testing I've done has been on a half-dozen off-the-shelf Dell laptops. But the same applies; we want absolute guaranteed reliability, so we NEED a good database. Postgres all the way! (Plus we need bindings for C++, Pike, and PHP, and I'm a lot happier with Postgres than several other options in that area.) ChrisA - Achilleas Mantzios IT DEPT -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
MySQL doesn't even support self referential updates like update t1 set c1 ='value' where t1.id not in (select id from t1 where id 100); Nor is it fully ACID compliant. And its online documentation is a nightmare. PgAdmin is infintely better than mysql workbench, heck anything is better than MySQLWorkbench Postgres as of 9 will do pretty much anything Oracle or mssql will do minus robust tools (where mssql is a clear winner with ssrs and ssis and ssms). Oracles tools are coming around with developer, modeler, and analytics but really oracle is for when you need serious distributed transaction balancing via RAC. Honestly if your not using RAC there is no reason to use Oracle. So There is not one reason to go with MySQL over Postgres and tons of reason to use Postgres over MySQL, arrays, ORM, Tools, Documentation, Cross-Language Support, Faster, ACID compliant, etc And if you want a really rich toolset and you have bought into the .NET library model, which once you start digging is quite cool, go read petzolds DotNETZero, then go with mssql. And if your running a transaction volume to rival Amazon and want a db that can come as close to a true parrallel load balancing as RAC then fork aout the shiny and go with Oracle. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Too-far-out-of-the-mainstream-tp5722177p5722878.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:43:15AM +0200, Geert Mak wrote: There is this case studies section as well - http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/ Which appear to me a little old and a little too little, one could try to add more, perhaps. I noticed that the Share Your Story link is broken. I don't know how long it's been broken, but this might be a reason there are no new ones. Thanks for reporting that - link fixed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
I dunno, perhaps I don't get out the office enough, but I just don't hear about MySQL any more. I think this thread is tilting at windmills. A few years ago about 1 in 2 contracts we had was with a start-up using MySQL. The other half were using either PG or Oracle or SQLServer. The years before that, pre-dot-com-crash, every start-up used Oracle, presumably because Larry had some Vulcan mind grip over the VCs. Then Oracle acquired MySQL any anyone with a brain and some imagination figured out where that would lead eventually. So today everyone I meet is either using PostgreSQL or some web scale store like Raik, MondoDB, Cassandra. MySQL is nowhere to be seen. I'm not sure if that's because folks migrated from MySQL to something else, or because the MySQL-using companies were the ones that went out of business. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Achilleas Mantzios ach...@smadev.internal.net wrote: On Τετ 05 Σεπτ 2012 10:51:49 Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 19:14:28 -0700 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. I know a bunch of people working for huge sites that love Postgres but use MySQL. The main reason is they build what Postgres is famous for at a higher level and in a more specialized way with their own glue. Postgresql has more meaning in the enterprise than in a web site. Web Content is never critical. The world will keep turning even if some CSS file or some article gets lost. They are meant to be transient any way. They are not part of anything bigger. On top of that, you also have to recognize this: In most content management areas, data truncation, etc. is perfectly reasonable (and in fact desirable) as a way of handling data that is too long. Most of MySQL's historical gotchas were features built in for light-weight content management. If a comment on a blog is too long, why make the application specify truncation? Just truncate it and get it over with. Of course this meant MySQL couldn't move beyond content management safely until they addressed that, but now they have gone to a different niche which is again entirely different from ours: one-app-per-database capable of customized behavior in order to achieve portability. However since every session can set sql_mode, this approach thus again limits MySQL to that specific lowest common denominator market. Sure you can set sql_mode = 'TRADITIONAL' but you have to cope with the fact that every other application writing to the tables could set their own sql_mode and that means you can't count on strict mode to mean anything. For historical and software licensing reasons, however, this second one-app-per-db market is *huge.* Postgresql shines whenever data matters. I cannot imagine running our app (single master, 80+ slaves in 80+ vessels in the 7 seas (80+ = 80 and growning)) in mysql. We have not lost a single transaction. We have not had a single integrity issue. All problems were due to our own fault and never postgresql's. Runing a variaty of 7.4 / 8.3 mixture (unfortunately upgrading to 9+ is a very hard task to manage) (now all are on 8.3) we never had any issues. And the servers run unattended, in almost military (marine) conditions, with frequent blackouts, hardware failures due to vibration, disk failures, mother board failures, CPU failures, memory failures. Postgresql just delivered. Now there's a case study. You should write it up or even just submit what you wrote above. And the thing is that postgresql really has no rivals either. No competitor when it comes to full-featured OSS RDBMS. There are OSS rdbms (mysql) and full featured rdbms (DB2/Oracle) but none besides pgsql which combines both worlds. Also, as far as extensibility is concerned, postgresql is clearly the king. No kidding there. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Thanks in advance for your input. Andy Yoder Hi all, I really don't want to waste your time too much on this - so please ignore if so - but I have been watching this group for many years. There are more than 26K emails in my inbox! You never hear from me because really I'm more a Java guy (PG hides behind Hibernate here) - and in the end PG just works perfectly forever on any dodgy customer PC we install on. So on this esteemed group I'm no more than a novice, although I would claim much dev and management experience. FWIW, my comments on this thread are as follows ... - The issue is one of mind share - MySQL has it, PG deserves it. - PG desperately needs to have amunition available for this OP - PG already convinces highly astute people who have time, knowledge, and inclination - PG misses too many people in influencial positions who don't have the above This mainly calls for ... (1) to have a visible community (2) to have endorsements (3) to be seen regularly So what to do? ... - Every PG conference (or gathering, expo trade show etc) should be expected to submit photos and a brief story of what went on. Who (half famous or important) was there, what was discussed, issues of the day etc. - Rock stars within or close enough to PG should be asked to write endorsements. CEOs, CIOs, gun devs, consultants. - Key PG people should be rostered to contribute one or two articles per year to mags, sites, etc - All the above should be posted on the website under the banner Community or something. - Anything more than 12-18 months old is trashed. I'm trying to think of things that take 1-4 hours here and there. Yip - I know I'm allocating work around where I have no right to do so, but I think that these soft issues are as important as ACID and replication. Anyway - nuff said - I'll return to my OutOfMemory exception. At least I know the data is safe. Cheers, -Damian
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Em 05/09/2012 23:49, Chris Travers escreveu: Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. This kind of claim is just to feed flame wars. Don't think I need to state that a db developer becomes a app developer as soon as he start to develop any database server code, right? Edson. Best Wishes, Chris Travers -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.com wrote: Em 05/09/2012 23:49, Chris Travers escreveu: Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. This kind of claim is just to feed flame wars. Don't think I need to state that a db developer becomes a app developer as soon as he start to develop any database server code, right? I kind of agree with both of you somewhat. A lot of developers think of their data in a hierarchical manner. If so a simple key-value data store is often your best answer. MySQL's basic design is that of a simple key-value data store parading as a relational database. While it's had a lot done to it to make it better in the role of relational data manager, it's still got a lot of baggage from back in the day that means that as you go from simple data store to complex relational data management, you start to notice warts, like a planner that's dumb as a stump, and very simple join methods that make complex queries painfully slow. For people who are just storing and retrieving lots of simple data, it's still great. PostgreSQL's heritage was correctness in SQL and set theory. The obvious example is queries that MySQL, or at least older versions of it, would run that Postgresql would, correctly, throw an error on. Simple example is: select a,b,c from sometable group by a; assuming there's no PK on a, this query SHOULD throw an error because in that case which values you get for b and c are both undefined, and the SQL standard says that it should therefore throw an error. Performance and easy use were not a priority for most of its early life, so the MySQL philosophy of just run the query and give me the wrong answer like I asked wasn't good enough. They started from very different places, and while they've moved towards each other over the last decade, their heritages mean they still have very different strengths and weaknesses. If you write code by grabbing small globs of data from the db, doing the mangling in the CPU, then stuffing them back out to the db, MySQL might be your best choice. If you write code by transforming data sets in the database, then PostgreSQL is likely your best bet. The problem you run into is that if you're only familiar with one db and you're trying to use it like the other one. MySQL will dominate at apps that mostly read a lot of tiny bits of data and occasionally write chunks of code out. PostgreSQL will dominate at lots of atomic updates or large data transformations all taking place in the db layer, not in app code. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Em 06/09/2012 00:39, Scott Marlowe escreveu: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.com wrote: Em 05/09/2012 23:49, Chris Travers escreveu: Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. This kind of claim is just to feed flame wars. Don't think I need to state that a db developer becomes a app developer as soon as he start to develop any database server code, right? I kind of agree with both of you somewhat. A lot of developers think of their data in a hierarchical manner. If so a simple key-value data store is often your best answer. MySQL's basic design is that of a simple key-value data store parading as a relational database. While it's had a lot done to it to make it better in the role of relational data manager, it's still got a lot of baggage from back in the day that means that as you go from simple data store to complex relational data management, you start to notice warts, like a planner that's dumb as a stump, and very simple join methods that make complex queries painfully slow. For people who are just storing and retrieving lots of simple data, it's still great. PostgreSQL's heritage was correctness in SQL and set theory. The obvious example is queries that MySQL, or at least older versions of it, would run that Postgresql would, correctly, throw an error on. Simple example is: select a,b,c from sometable group by a; assuming there's no PK on a, this query SHOULD throw an error because in that case which values you get for b and c are both undefined, and the SQL standard says that it should therefore throw an error. Performance and easy use were not a priority for most of its early life, so the MySQL philosophy of just run the query and give me the wrong answer like I asked wasn't good enough. They started from very different places, and while they've moved towards each other over the last decade, their heritages mean they still have very different strengths and weaknesses. If you write code by grabbing small globs of data from the db, doing the mangling in the CPU, then stuffing them back out to the db, MySQL might be your best choice. If you write code by transforming data sets in the database, then PostgreSQL is likely your best bet. The problem you run into is that if you're only familiar with one db and you're trying to use it like the other one. MySQL will dominate at apps that mostly read a lot of tiny bits of data and occasionally write chunks of code out. PostgreSQL will dominate at lots of atomic updates or large data transformations all taking place in the db layer, not in app code. Yes, I heard from a beginner devel that he likes MySQL because it gives less errors. PostgreSQL was always bugging his app complaining about some foreign keys. I just had to get out for laugh :-) Nevertheless, I've a large app, and I admit: I tried to run with MySQL+InnoDB. I'll never do the same mistake twice. My data got corrupt (foreign keys have been ignored, as well primary keys), and I got lots of zombie records in database. Nowadays, I just limit my self to adults databases: PostgreSQL (my preferred on last 5 years because it just works), MS SQL (because I worked with it for most of my professional life since 1990s: and yes, I used it when it was just Sybase's core), Oracle (besides I think it's like a big expensive White Elephant) and Db2, that surprised me in its last incarnation. What I feel missing in PgSQL? Tools that help me to improve performance. Every time I need to analyze a query, I miss the MS SQL Server performance analyzer tool, and the Db2 optimizer :-) But life is like that, and I get used to it. And PostgreSQL have been working very weel since 8.4 for me (by today, all my databases (development and production) run 9.1 without any trouble). Regards, Edson -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.comwrote: Em 05/09/2012 23:49, Chris Travers escreveu: Regarding MySQL vs PostgreSQL: MySQL is what you get when app developers build a database server. PostgreSQL is what you get when db developers build a development platform. There really isn't anything more to say about it. This kind of claim is just to feed flame wars. Don't think I need to state that a db developer becomes a app developer as soon as he start to develop any database server code, right? I don't mean it that way. The basic thing is that MySQL's view of data integrity is extremely application centric. Even today, applications get to tell the server whether to throw an error when you try to insert -00-00 into a date field (this is via the sql_mode setting and admins can't restrict what an app can do there). MySQL makes perfect sense when you are an application developer looking at the database as a place to store information for your own private use. In essence, MySQL makes perfect sense when you realize that my = private in OO terms. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if that's what you are using it for, and because of ways the db market has developed there are a huge number of developers who are very happy with a lowest common denominator RDBMS where you can assume one app writing to the db (or at least any given relation), and possibly other apps reading. In short if you want an easy db to port SQL code that was intended to be portable to, MySQL is the RDBMS for you. For people who want to avoid putting business logic in the db, and want to put all the API's for interoperability and integration in their app logic, it's a good RDBMS. In fact, I can't actually think of better. This is *especially true* if you want to make it dangerous for other apps to write to the db, perhaps in order to say this is not supported and ask people to purchase more client access licenses MySQL behavior that seems incorrect is not necessarily incorrect in that context. It's a data store for one app to write to and optionally other apps to read from. The app can be trusted to not do crazy things with sql_mode settings or the like, and if it does, whatever the app tells the db is correct behavior, the db is supposed to do. PostgreSQL on the other hand has been engineered from the beginning (as I understand it) with the idea that you have multiple applications writing to the same relations. So a lot of the things like sql_mode settings, which are great for porting applications to MySQL, would be dangerous in a PostgreSQL context. The relations are a public API, while in MySQL they are at least semi-private. Additionally from the beginning you have had a very strong emphasis on being able to do advanced data modelling in PostgreSQL perhaps to an extent even today unparalleled elsewhere. If you are going to do db-level programming in PostgreSQL, you shouldn't IMO think like an application developer but rather like a database developer. What I am getting at is that if you are an app developer looking at databases, MySQL looks fine, and the warts more or less match how you would tend to think a db should act anyway. If you are a db developer, PostgreSQL tries hard where we all agree on correct db behavior to do the right thing without respect to what the app might have intended. On the other hand, this is mostly a platform for data modelling, and if you are an app developer a lot of things will seem weird in that context until you get used to it. Like it or not, the perspectives are very different. If all you want is an information store for your app with reporting capabilities, then you end up with a different solution then if you want to manage data in a centralized way. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 08/31/2012 01:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ..Anyone who thinks that MySQL, with its sketchy guarantees of data integrity and persistence, is mainstream-acceptable but Postgres isn't because they haven't read about it in InfoWorld And if they want to read about it in InfoWorld, they can: http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-stealth-success-of-postgresql-197584 Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Geert Mak po...@verysmall.org wrote: I have been looking into heroku lately, they run on PostgreSQL - https://postgres.heroku.com/postgres Went out to lunch with a guy who worked for Redfin as well. I guess they're all Postgres over there too.. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Mike Christensen m...@kitchenpc.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Geert Mak po...@verysmall.org wrote: I have been looking into heroku lately, they run on PostgreSQL - https://postgres.heroku.com/postgres Went out to lunch with a guy who worked for Redfin as well. I guess they're all Postgres over there too.. Since there's no reporting requirements for using postgresql commercially etc, it's kind of a stealth database. It's all over the place and nobody knows it. Meanwhile, finding qualified PostgreSQL DBAs is pretty tough because of it's silent yet explosive growth in usage. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Hi Andy, You might be interested in an old post where I compared my experiences using a commercial database with using PostgreSQL in the Wisconsin Courts environment: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2011-11/msg00021.php With only 3000 directly connected users and a few million web hits a day backed by PostgreSQL, the Wisconsin court system is far from the largest user, but I figure that if the larger organizations want to broadcast their usage, that's up to them. I also have talked to others with much larger databases than we have -- our largest one is 3TB. Again, it's not my place to broadcast details if they don't choose to do so. But I think out of the mainstream is a very odd description of PostgreSQL. It sounds like the sort of thing which a representative of a commercial product, afraid of losing big money to PostgreSQL but unable to come up with any *real* reason not to use it, might throw out there to try to scare people away from it. I will join the chorus advising you to ask for more particular concerns. What is it that they think makes those other database products no more risky than PostgreSQL? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 05/09/12 05:35, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Mike Christensen m...@kitchenpc.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Geert Mak po...@verysmall.org wrote: I have been looking into heroku lately, they run on PostgreSQL - https://postgres.heroku.com/postgres Went out to lunch with a guy who worked for Redfin as well. I guess they're all Postgres over there too.. Since there's no reporting requirements for using postgresql commercially etc, it's kind of a stealth database. It's all over the place and nobody knows it. Meanwhile, finding qualified PostgreSQL DBAs is pretty tough because of it's silent yet explosive growth in usage. Possibly there should be mandatory reporting of postgresql, just like there is for other contagious diseases? :-) How about putting a notice in the release notes to encourage people to report their usage? Additionally, have bragging tables were people can register their biggest postgresql database or table, peak transactions per day, ... ? Probably best to solicit entries first, them companies can send in results to get themselves in the top ten, or something. I have read to emails to one of the postgresql lists, where people in companies with 1000's of databases had power failures and only the postgresql databases restarted without special recovery actions required. The other databases mentioned were Oracle, MySql, and SQL Server. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 05/09/12 05:35, Scott Marlowe wrote: I have read to emails to one of the postgresql lists, where people in companies with 1000's of databases had power failures and only the postgresql databases restarted without special recovery actions required. The other databases mentioned were Oracle, MySql, and SQL Server. That was likely me, tho it wasn't thousands, it was somewhere near 100 or so. It was more a case of the other DBAs not doing their due diligence and testing their hardware back 10 or so years ago, when hard drives and RAID controllers often lied about fsync. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 05/09/12 08:38, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 05/09/12 05:35, Scott Marlowe wrote: I have read to emails to one of the postgresql lists, where people in companies with 1000's of databases had power failures and only the postgresql databases restarted without special recovery actions required. The other databases mentioned were Oracle, MySql, and SQL Server. That was likely me, tho it wasn't thousands, it was somewhere near 100 or so. It was more a case of the other DBAs not doing their due diligence and testing their hardware back 10 or so years ago, when hard drives and RAID controllers often lied about fsync. I fairly certain the 2 emails were from different people, and I read them within the last 12 (6?) months. I may well have written about it in the last 6 to 12 months, that doesn't mean it happened in the last 6 to 12 months. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Since this PGCon 2011 page has no slides - http://www.pgcon.org/2011/schedule/events/361.en.html I Googled for sharding and PostgreSQL and I found this - http://www.databasesoup.com/2012/04/sharding-postgres-with-instagram.html On Tuesday last week we had a terrific SFPUG meeting at which Mike Kreiger of Instagram explained how they grew and eventually sharded their 2TB of Postgres data to support 27 million users. Here are the slides - http://media.postgresql.org/sfpug/instagram_sfpug.pdf -- Is somebody collecting and organizing such things? I could not find anything about Instagram on www.postgresql.org. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.comwrote: Since there's no reporting requirements for using postgresql commercially etc, it's kind of a stealth database. It's all over the place and nobody knows it. Meanwhile, finding qualified PostgreSQL DBAs is pretty tough because of it's silent yet explosive growth in usage. Ever since I have been doing database stuff (since 1999), PostgreSQL has been the go-to db in the open source world for complex business applications, first because MySQL didn't have transactions and later because it's just better. I don't think the stealth phenomenon is just a matter of no reporting requirements. After all MySQL's exposure is way beyond its reporting requirements. Rather here's the thing: You have basically two kinds of uses for RDBMS's out there. The first is for internal information storage, centralization, and management, and the second is as a platform for applications you are going to sell or otherwise distribute. PostgreSQL has always been far more at home in the former than the latter. This is the exact opposite of MySQL which is today really built almost exclusively for the latter at the expense of the former (sql_mode being subject to each application's discretion and the like). So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. I do think that is changing. Last year I went to the Malaysian Government Open Source Software convention and was amazed at the visibility of PostgreSQL. We were the only booth advertising services for official PostgreSQL versions but advertised EnterpriseDB resellers were more common than people advertising MySQL services even when you add Oracle to the mix (they were there too). At the same time, my sense from talking with people there was that despite the way that EDB's marketing had framed the official version as the community edition, the official version was by far the most common open source RDBMS used in the public sector in Malaysia. Not only this but there was significant interest in moving more db's to PostgreSQL, but the big limitation is that everyone who knows PostgreSQL already has a job. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 05/09/12 08:38, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 05/09/12 05:35, Scott Marlowe wrote: I have read to emails to one of the postgresql lists, where people in companies with 1000's of databases had power failures and only the postgresql databases restarted without special recovery actions required. The other databases mentioned were Oracle, MySql, and SQL Server. That was likely me, tho it wasn't thousands, it was somewhere near 100 or so. It was more a case of the other DBAs not doing their due diligence and testing their hardware back 10 or so years ago, when hard drives and RAID controllers often lied about fsync. I fairly certain the 2 emails were from different people, and I read them within the last 12 (6?) months.
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Hi, On 5 September 2012 12:14, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: So people are using PostgreSQL in roles that aren't very visible anyway, DBA's are usually coming to PostgreSQL from other RDBMS's, and few applications are really distributed for PostgreSQL. snip Not only this but there was significant interest in moving more db's to PostgreSQL, but the big limitation is that everyone who knows PostgreSQL already has a job. Some shops are going opposite way -- from PostgreSQL to MySQL like databases because of missing replication features. The 9.1 caught up but there is no multi-master replication like in Percona's XtraDB cluster: http://www.percona.com/software/percona-xtradb-cluster/ Postgres-XC can solve this missing multi-master replication issue but nobody knows that this project exists. Another project is Galera Cluster for PostgreSQL (Galera is used in XtraDB) but this looks like vaporware... -- Ondrej Ivanic (ondrej.iva...@gmail.com) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
I have been looking into heroku lately, they run on PostgreSQL - https://postgres.heroku.com/postgres -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 04/09/12 10:38, Geert Mak wrote: I have been looking into heroku lately, they run on PostgreSQL - https://postgres.heroku.com/postgres PostgreSQL is the database of choice for reliable web-applications. Is what they say on that page, not mincing words are they? Cheers, Gavin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote in message news:CAKt_ZfvZfYq_VPYXG3p=fy=s1whcc0p9trxkczfrrsjsqms...@mail.gmail.com... On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it technical risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes out of business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of what exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question you aren't doing yourself any favors. The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer to. You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different approaches: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the same db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has to live with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether -00-00 is a valid date for error checking purposes. 2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain registry comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of development is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional about change management. 3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors offering top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an ability to just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means support will continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a very different thing from single vendor software, where support will continue as long as the vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it. Best Wishes, Chris travers Not to forget that Skype has used PostrgeSQL from the start... Probably a very good case study to use that PG is mainstream enough. Johan Nel South Africa.
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. He didn't say Ingres. Illustra was a commercial fork of Postgres (the pre-SQL versions, I think). It was later bought out by Informix. I don't have any info on how much of that code base survives in the modern (IBM-owned) version of Informix - but one could assume there's at least some. Also whether Informix still has Postgres code, the heritage is quite obvious when you start looking at things like OID's and table inheritance. I checked and it was pre-SQL when the fork occurred, and in fact Illustra moved to SQL first. This probably explains a lot of differences (such as in how table inheritance works in Informix vs Postgres). Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:43:15AM +0200, Geert Mak wrote: There is this case studies section as well - http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/ Which appear to me a little old and a little too little, one could try to add more, perhaps. I noticed that the Share Your Story link is broken. I don't know how long it's been broken, but this might be a reason there are no new ones. What kind of success story would be accepted for this page? We're also running Postgres for most our projects at work, some of them being rather large databases. Of course large is subjective... some people might call it kids' stuff. Also, how well known does a company need to be in order for it to be on the list? Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music. -- Donald Knuth -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Em 31/08/2012 16:52, David Johnston escreveu: -Original Message- From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general- ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andy Yoder Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:25 PM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Cc: Andy Yoder Subject: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Thanks in advance for your input. Andy Yoder Postgres, like the other database products out there, attempts to adhere to an independent standard (SQL) as well as provide additional functionality deemed useful but that falls outside the standard. Its long existence and usage in many different businesses and situations, as well as it regular major-release schedule, shows that it is indeed mainstream. Even in a worse-case scenario, were all new development to stop, prior stable releases are available and proven in the market and already released under and open-source license that cannot be revoked - unlike other licenses in the market. Aside from all that I would politely ask the client's IT group for specific and detailed concerns that can be addressed with facts and not via simple assertions that it works for other people. If the client's IT group is going to be supporting the database then mainstream has a different meaning than if all database management is going to done by you and they are worried that PostgreSQL is insecure (which is not just a function of the database but your entire infrastructure) or is going to be too slow for the amount of data they are going to be accessing. Specifics... David J. It's an interesting thing. We have a product that runs over PostgreSQL without any problems (well, we have few, but most of them can be worked around). Nevertheless, when we present our product to customers, they won't get satisfied until we guarantee we can run same product with major paid versions (Oracle, MS SQL, and so on). We assert to them that PostgreSQL works as good as any other (paid) databases, and even better. After that (knowing that they have a choice), they won't question any more, and they use PostgreSQL without any concerns. Seems that people (managers) that don't understand the technical stuff need to know that they have a fall back to a paid version (the one that they can blame if something goes wrong). Thankfully, our product running over PostgreSQL never stoped in 5 years of development in any of our customers. Now, I cannot tell the same about MS SQL Server and MySQL, that had several problems regarding database structure, and DB2 that suffers of constant DBA maintenance for performance as the application grows too fast. Regards, Edson -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it technical risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes out of business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of what exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question you aren't doing yourself any favors. The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer to. You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different approaches: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the same db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has to live with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether -00-00 is a valid date for error checking purposes. 2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain registry comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of development is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional about change management. 3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors offering top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an ability to just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means support will continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a very different thing from single vendor software, where support will continue as long as the vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it. Best Wishes, Chris travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 9/1/2012 6:42 AM, Edson Richter wrote: Nevertheless, when we present our product to customers, they won't get satisfied until we guarantee we can run same product with major paid versions (Oracle, MS SQL, and so on). I think this is a business problem not a technology problem. Forget trying to persuade these folks that your solution is a good one. It is better instead to just say ok, you can have X (Oracle, whatever) and the price will be y (quite large number). In my experience a customer in this situation will suddenly become much less entrenched in their belief that your solution is not suitable. Shift the frame to be about money (easily quantifiable, and something the customer wants to keep) rather than technical arguments (hard to quantify, win, pin down, cheap and easy for the customer to argue about). -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Wandering away from the original topic a little but helpful enough to continue this line of reasoning here. On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.comwrote: It's an interesting thing. We have a product that runs over PostgreSQL without any problems (well, we have few, but most of them can be worked around). Nevertheless, when we present our product to customers, they won't get satisfied until we guarantee we can run same product with major paid versions (Oracle, MS SQL, and so on). We assert to them that PostgreSQL works as good as any other (paid) databases, and even better. After that (knowing that they have a choice), they won't question any more, and they use PostgreSQL without any concerns. Seems that people (managers) that don't understand the technical stuff need to know that they have a fall back to a paid version (the one that they can blame if something goes wrong). Thankfully, our product running over PostgreSQL never stoped in 5 years of development in any of our customers. Now, I cannot tell the same about MS SQL Server and MySQL, that had several problems regarding database structure, and DB2 that suffers of constant DBA maintenance for performance as the application grows too fast. I have been thinking about this phenomenon a lot. I don't run into it as much as others probably because what I think is out there and so people don't ask, but the question is why this comes up so much. Here is my theory and it is worth bringing up here because it does have a bearing on the original question. The database market has traditionally been dominated by big-cost alternatives, which tend to require substantial investments in per server and per user licensing (usually together) and in expertise. For this reason businesses have reasonably chosen to centralize all systems on one system, whether it is Oracle, MS SQL, DB2, Informix, etc. This saves costs and it reduces complexity in the IT environment. It seems like a winning strategy. In actuality however the main thing this does it it separates commercial, off the shelf apps from internal and specialized apps. The former want to reach a larger market and the only way they can do this is to program in a way that is portable across databases, meaning that everything gets done in standard SQL and advanced features are ignored. Internal apps, and those specializing in markets where they can limit themselves to one db, tend to use advanced features. However the app developers for commercial apps all try to control access to the db because that is where their gold is, so most of these are, the developer hopes, only accessed by the licensed app. In many cases I know of applications whose EULA's forbid third party apps from accessing the application's database. Where MySQL comes in is that after content management they became a database *just good enough* to handle this one application per db scenario and all the things that make the db horrible when 30 apps are writing to it are features for the one app per db with portable SQL model. MySQL's big weakness here is actually its strength when it comes to its business model. So the difficulty is that unless IT departments are willing to accept multiple RDBMS's in their environment, you will end up with applications coded in a style that's best described as we'd use NoSQL but we want some ad hoc reporting. The thing about PostgreSQL is it is not, and will never be, the lowest common denominator database any more than Oracle will be. We aren't highly specialized like Vertica or VoltDB. We are an excellent generalist database which can be used for really advanced data modelling, and we are rock solid behavior-wise at least if you stay away from the undefined fringe. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. As I understand it, Allura was started by Stonebraker as an attempt to commercialize Postgres. It switched to SQL before Postgres did, and was bought by Informix, renamed as Informix, and then bought by IBM. Am I missing something? Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. He didn't say Ingres. Illustra was a commercial fork of Postgres (the pre-SQL versions, I think). It was later bought out by Informix. I don't have any info on how much of that code base survives in the modern (IBM-owned) version of Informix - but one could assume there's at least some. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. He didn't say Ingres. Yeah I thought he might have been conflating the two. Illustra was a commercial fork of Postgres (the pre-SQL versions, I think). It was later bought out by Informix. I don't have any info on how much of that code base survives in the modern (IBM-owned) version of Informix - but one could assume there's at least some. Possibly, but it hardly makes informix a fork of postgres. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
2012/9/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate Pretty sure that's not true. Ingres is a cousin of Postgres started by the same guy, Stonebraker, but it's not a fork either. He didn't say Ingres. Illustra was a commercial fork of Postgres (the pre-SQL versions, I think). It was later bought out by Informix. I don't have any info on how much of that code base survives in the modern (IBM-owned) version of Informix - but one could assume there's at least some. true, Illustra was comercial fork of PostgreSQL with SQL and blades from 1991. Later Informix bought Illustra and Stonebraker was CEO of Informix. Pavel regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
2012/9/1 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? It is hard to know what sort of risk they are worried about. Is it technical risk of data loss? Risk of a lack of support if the vendor goes out of business? I think the first thing you need to do is get a good sense of what exactly they are worried about. If you answer the wrong question you aren't doing yourself any favors. The way I see it, this sort of comment is a useful way to open a conversation, but probably not the best one to just walk in with an answer to. You probably want to be prepared however by preparing a few different approaches: 1) While MySQL is perhaps better marketed, PostgreSQL is an older project with a proud heritage (Informix started as a Postgres fork), and top-rate development. It has been the standard go-to database for complex business applications for a long time. Also MySQL targets a very different approach than PostgreSQL and starts to break down fast when multiple apps share the same db because each app can set its own sql_mode settings and the dba has to live with the fact that each app gets to decide, for example, whether -00-00 is a valid date for error checking purposes. Tens years PostgreSQL has no sellers, who push PostgreSQL to end customers. Almost all clients just wait to sellers - I was surprised how much developers are really passive - and how much developers has minimal informations about PostgreSQL. We are relative well in pushing information in open source channels, but it is speaking to relative smaller group of developers. 2) PostgreSQL is an exceptionally robust database, used in a significant number of heavy-duty applications (Afilias's use for the .org domain registry comes to mind). It offers a top-notch feature set and the pace of development is high. Additionally the team is exceptionally professional about change management. 3) PostgreSQL has always been built on the idea of multiple vendors offering top-notch support offerings. Unlike MySQL there has never been an ability to just take over the project by buying the vendor. This also means support will continue as long as there is demand for the support, which is a very different thing from single vendor software, where support will continue as long as the vendor finds it worthwhile to provide it. Best Wishes, Chris travers -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On 09/01/2012 01:24 PM, Peter Bex wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:43:15AM +0200, Geert Mak wrote: There is this case studies section as well - http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/ Which appear to me a little old and a little too little, one could try to add more, perhaps. I noticed that the Share Your Story link is broken. I don't know how long it's been broken, but this might be a reason there are no new ones. hmm thanks for mentioning that - we will look into fixing that soon. What kind of success story would be accepted for this page? We're also running Postgres for most our projects at work, some of them being rather large databases. Of course large is subjective... some people might call it kids' stuff. Also, how well known does a company need to be in order for it to be on the list? I don't think there are any formal requirements, in fact i think people would welcome an interesting casestudy any day - so please make one :) Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Thanks in advance for your input. Andy Yoder -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
So do they ever go to a site that ends in .org or .info? Tell them to stop it right now, as they are relying on PostgreSQL for those sites to resolve, and PostgreSQL is too far out of the mainstream. Once they've stopped using or visiting .org and .info sites tell them to get back to you. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Andy Yoder ayo...@airfacts.com wrote: Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Thanks in advance for your input. Andy Yoder -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
-Original Message- From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general- ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andy Yoder Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:25 PM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Cc: Andy Yoder Subject: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream Hello all, I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? Thanks in advance for your input. Andy Yoder Postgres, like the other database products out there, attempts to adhere to an independent standard (SQL) as well as provide additional functionality deemed useful but that falls outside the standard. Its long existence and usage in many different businesses and situations, as well as it regular major-release schedule, shows that it is indeed mainstream. Even in a worse-case scenario, were all new development to stop, prior stable releases are available and proven in the market and already released under and open-source license that cannot be revoked - unlike other licenses in the market. Aside from all that I would politely ask the client's IT group for specific and detailed concerns that can be addressed with facts and not via simple assertions that it works for other people. If the client's IT group is going to be supporting the database then mainstream has a different meaning than if all database management is going to done by you and they are worried that PostgreSQL is insecure (which is not just a function of the database but your entire infrastructure) or is going to be too slow for the amount of data they are going to be accessing. Specifics... David J. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:25:13PM -0500, Andy Yoder wrote: I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? This canard has been going around for years. Anyone who thinks that MySQL, with its sketchy guarantees of data integrity and persistence, is mainstream-acceptable but Postgres isn't because they haven't read about it in InfoWorld (or wherever they get their news) is just believing too much of whatever marketing material their vendors are shoveling at them. A response to this sort of question from the .org TLD redelegation is still available online: http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13TheInternetSocietyISOC. The details in that answer are all obsolete, of course, since it's from several years (and Postgres versions) ago, but you can use it as a cheat sheet in formulating your answer. For what it's worth, .org was redelegated from Verisign to Public Interest Registry, and the resulting system used PostgreSQL (instead of Oracle). There are more recent community marketing materials around, but I thought I'd point you to this one because the kind of pressure we were under at the time was pretty much exactly as you're describing. Good luck. -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:25:13PM -0500, Andy Yoder wrote: I would like the community's input on a topic. The words too far out of the mainstream are from an e-mail we received from one of our clients, describing the concern our client's IT group has about our use of PostgreSQL in our shop. The group in question supports multiple different databases, including Oracle, MySQL, SQLServer, DB2, and even some non-relational databases (think Cobol and file-based storage), each type with a variety of applications and support needs. We are in the running for getting a large contract from them and need to address their question: What makes PostgreSQL no more risky than any other database? This canard has been going around for years. Anyone who thinks that MySQL, with its sketchy guarantees of data integrity and persistence, is mainstream-acceptable but Postgres isn't because they haven't read about it in InfoWorld (or wherever they get their news) is just believing too much of whatever marketing material their vendors are shoveling at them. A response to this sort of question from the .org TLD redelegation is still available online: http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13TheInternetSocietyISOC. The details in that answer are all obsolete, of course, since it's from several years (and Postgres versions) ago, but you can use it as a cheat sheet in formulating your answer. For what it's worth, .org was redelegated from Verisign to Public Interest Registry, and the resulting system used PostgreSQL (instead of Oracle). One of the most fascinating things to come out of the whole Afilias winning the right to host the .org and .info domains was Oracle's PR response to the suggestion of using postgresql. Wish I could find it. Andrew might have it archived somewhere. But the Oracle PR flak basically outright lied about PostgreSQL, saying it didn't support transactions. This bald faced lie might be understandable if transactions were bolted onto PostgreSQL at some late date after its inception, but transactions were pretty much built in from the beginning. I.e. Oracle will say what they have to to win, and if that means looking you in the face and lying about the competition, they won't hesitate to do it. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote: So do they ever go to a site that ends in .org or .info? Tell them to stop it right now, as they are relying on PostgreSQL for those sites to resolve, and PostgreSQL is too far out of the mainstream. Once they've stopped using or visiting .org and .info sites tell them to get back to you. Mmm. Don't push this line of argument too hard. As I understand it, Postgresql is used by the registry to keep track of their customers - whois data, effectively. The actual resolution is handled by a different database, or was back when I knew the details of that end of .org. I'm sure there's an Access database somewhere in Facebook, but that doesn't mean Facebook runs on Access. :) Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
A response to this sort of question from the .org TLD redelegation is still available online: http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13TheInternetSocietyISOC. The details in that answer are all obsolete, of course, since it's from several years (and Postgres versions) ago, but you can use it as a cheat sheet in formulating your answer. For what it's worth, .org was redelegated from Verisign to Public Interest Registry, and the resulting system used PostgreSQL (instead of Oracle). There are more recent community marketing materials around, but I thought I'd point you to this one because the kind of pressure we were under at the time was pretty much exactly as you're describing. There is this case studies section as well - http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/ Which appear to me a little old and a little too little, one could try to add more, perhaps. Also the limitations page is interesting - http://www.postgresql.org/about/ Also you have what people say about it - http://www.postgresql.org/about/quotesarchive/ And awards - http://www.postgresql.org/about/awards/ We have been using PostgreSQL for about 10 years and are currently developing quite big data crunching application which should handle between 25 and 100 million objects which go over object-relational mapping and may easily have 20-30 properties each, so we might go into 2-3 billion rows. We have a master database which is replicated via asynchronous streaming replication into read-only slaves, where the data crunching takes place. The whole setup runs on cloud servers, so it is easy to add more slaves when more capacity is needed. I should say, indeed, the fame of PostgreSQL is quite smaller than its qualities. But I guess that's the fate of most professional things which simply work, like vim. Our approach is that we are a solutions provider, and we use each successful project as a reference and we sign with our heads, that it will work. But I guess your situation is slightly different. -- -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:00:06PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: One of the most fascinating things to come out of the whole Afilias winning the right to host the .org and .info domains was Oracle's PR response to the suggestion of using postgresql. Wish I could find it. It was only the .org case. The .org redelegation, more than the start up of .info, was quite controversial. Nobody knew how much a new TLD was likely to make, but at redelegation .org contained about 5 million domains. At $6.00 per name per year wholesale (of which Afilias, as a vendor to PIR, took only a part, I wish to emphasise), there was a non-trivial amount of money involved in the operation of .org, so the bidding was pretty heavy. Also, at the time it wasn't clear to anyone whether ICANN would ever permit more labels in the root zone (now, of course, we know that the plan is thousands of new domains. It's feast or famine in the domain name industry ;-). The Oracle stuff is all part of the archived public comments on the ICANN site. You can find the whole sorry controversy here: http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/gartner-report/. Oracle's mouthpiece, Jenny Gelhausen, did seem to have conflated PostgreSQL and MySQL in the remarks. I found particularly amusing the claim in those remarks that Postgres was used primarily in the embedded market, because of course Postgres has very frequently been attacked for its resistance to proposed features that render it more suitable for the embedded market. The Gartner report itself was controversial: ISC, who also promised to use PostgreSQL for its back end, got a lower grade on the back end than did Afilias. Anyway, this is all an amusing walk down memory lane. Thanks for the reminder! Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com wrote: On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote: So do they ever go to a site that ends in .org or .info? Tell them to stop it right now, as they are relying on PostgreSQL for those sites to resolve, and PostgreSQL is too far out of the mainstream. Once they've stopped using or visiting .org and .info sites tell them to get back to you. Mmm. Don't push this line of argument too hard. As I understand it, Postgresql is used by the registry to keep track of their customers - whois data, effectively. The actual resolution is handled by a different database, or was back when I knew the details of that end of .org. I'm sure there's an Access database somewhere in Facebook, but that doesn't mean Facebook runs on Access. :) Unless things have changed, Andrew Sullivan in this message http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2002-09/msg00012.php says: All interactions with the shared registry system, and any whois queries against whois.afilias.net, are served by a PostgreSQL database. So yeah of course direct service of dns lookup is done via bind servers operating off harvested data, but whois comes right out of a pg database, and live updates go right into a pg database. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca wrote: Anyway, this is all an amusing walk down memory lane. Thanks for the reminder! Hard to believe it was so long ago! -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote: Unless things have changed, Andrew Sullivan in this message http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2002-09/msg00012.php says: All interactions with the shared registry system, and any whois queries against whois.afilias.net, are served by a PostgreSQL database. That's likely still the case, a decade later. So yeah of course direct service of dns lookup is done via bind servers operating off harvested data, dot-org is actually powered by UltraDNS tech (since bought out by Afilias) rather than bind. And that is directly SQL database backed, though likely not the database we know and love. So unless someone from Afilias pops up and tells us they're using PG there too I'm a little cautious about mentioning PostgreSQL, .org and DNS together. but whois comes right out of a pg database, and live updates go right into a pg database. Yup. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 03:14:30PM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: Mmm. Don't push this line of argument too hard. As I understand it, Postgresql is used by the registry to keep track of their customers - whois data, effectively. No, the Postgres back end in the Afilias implementation I worked on (it is as far as I know still there, but I don't work for Afilias any more and I don't have any special knowledge about their actual implementation as in production today) is for the domain name registry. That means that all the registration data -- which includes the data necessary to produce DNS responses -- is in that database. In addition, I worked on and deployed a system that generated directly all the DNS zone data directly from the PostgreSQL databases. It _is_ true, of course, that every DNS lookup is not a direct query of that database system. But unless Afilias has changed their implementation very dramatically (and I've no reason to believe they have), you could not get to any web site ending in .org (or, for that matter, .info, .in, .aero, .mobi, and a number of others) without the services of PostgreSQL. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Too far out of the mainstream
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:31:09PM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: dot-org is actually powered by UltraDNS tech (since bought out by Afilias) rather than bind. And that is directly SQL database backed, though likely not the database we know and love. No, it is not. Afilias did not buy UltraDNS. Neustar, who run .biz and .us, bought Ultra. Afilias does not use any Ultra servers in its systems, and hasn't since before I quit working for Afilias. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@crankycanuck.ca -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
