Jochem, I was hoping that you would respond. I've seen a number of your posts regarding PostgreSQL, and certainly wanted your opinion. :-)
We all know what opinions are like, which is why I didn't want to just take my friend's opinion as the end-all official truth. Thanks to you all, I believe that I'm going to give Postgre a shot and see how I like it myself. My intent is to have a dedicated db server (windows server 2003 - std ed.), which will run only the db. However, in a test/dev environment, I don't have that luxury. So, are there any issues that I need to be aware of when running on XP Pro along with IIS and CF 7.x in my dev environment? Thanks, Matt On 1/9/07, Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matt Quackenbush wrote: > > Thanks for the reply. I forgot to post his specific gripes about > it. Here > > is a quick summary: > > > > - non-standard sql > > I think that depends on what you call 'standard sql'. To me, standard SQL > is what is defined in ISO/IEC 9075 and few do better then PostgreSQL in that > respect. But if you take 'standard sql' to mean 'the SQL in product X', you > may discover many differences. > > > > - difficult to backup / migrate > > What is difficult about scheduling "pg_dumpall -f dumpfile"? > > For migration he may have a point. PostgreSQL will not allow you to shut > down the database, pack up the data files, put them on another machine and > start up there. While this technically is possible in some circumstances, it > is not a documented procedure because it is guaranteed not to work when you > move from for instance Windows to an AIX mainframe. Other products that only > run on limited platforms and do not have to worry about memory alignment and > the endianness of the host operating system do not have this limitation. > > > > - user authenication is weak > > PostgreSQL allows the DBA to use anything from no authentication to > Kerberos and you can even create single-signon with a Windows domain. User > authentication is as weak as the DBA configured it to be. > > And if we extend this to security in general you might want to Google a > bit. PostgreSQL is highly regarded for its security track record and is > often an example to other databases. For instance, while many databases > install themselves under an account with elevated privileges by default even > when that is technically not necessary, PostgreSQL refuses to run if it has > more permissions then it needs. > > > > - difficult to setup > > http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/oracle/115560 > > > > - difficult to manage > > To manage PostgreSQL you need to do a few things that are clearly spelled > out in the manual: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/maintenance.html > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/backup.html > Again I would have to ask what is so hard about setting up a scheduled > task. > > In short: you may want to ask him if he is not confusing PostgreSQL with > some other database. > > > > Your post was most informative, for sure. But there's one thing that > you > > mentioned that I was unaware of that is pretty much an instant turn-off > for > > me: cAsE sEnSiTiViTy. > > PostgreSQL identifiers are only case sensite if you make them case > sensitive by enclosing them between double quotes. The following code will > run just fine: > > CREATE TABLE fOo (BaR INTEGER); > > SELECT bAr FROM foo; > > Jochem > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:266081 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
