Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PostgreSQL 10.1 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PostgreSQL 10.1 Released

    Phoronix: PostgreSQL 10.1 Released

    PostgreSQL 10.1 is now available as the first update over the recently released PostgreSQL 10...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-10.1-Released

  • #2
    And it will clutter your system with dozens of executables in /bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.
    It doesn't support the SQL/JSON standard.
    It has a weird, custom, vanity license instead of an established common open source license.
    Most likely does not support the SQL:2016 standard. Probably not even SQL:2011.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      And it will clutter your system with dozens of executables in /bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.
      It doesn't support the SQL/JSON standard.
      It has a weird, custom, vanity license instead of an established common open source license.
      Most likely does not support the SQL:2016 standard. Probably not even SQL:2011.
      Of course it's not "valid" SQL/JSON. Regardless of anything else, PostgeSQL has supported JSON before it was in the fucking standard.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        And it will clutter your system with dozens of executables in /bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.
        It doesn't support the SQL/JSON standard.
        It has a weird, custom, vanity license instead of an established common open source license.
        Most likely does not support the SQL:2016 standard. Probably not even SQL:2011.
        Non issues compared to data loss at high load that I have faced in the past with MySQL

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          And it will clutter your system with dozens of executables in /bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.
          It doesn't support the SQL/JSON standard.
          It has a weird, custom, vanity license instead of an established common open source license.
          Most likely does not support the SQL:2016 standard. Probably not even SQL:2011.
          And you post this same bullshit every time a Postgres article is posted, let's not forget that.

          Where files go depends entirely on your chosen OS (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesy...archy_Standard). If you don't like it, maybe Windows is a better choice for you? On Windows all of Postgres gets installed in a single directory under Program Files.

          Any developer is free to choose the license they like. Why exactly do you believe you have the right to complain?

          And as for standards compliance, the SQL standard is large and complex, and most people really don't care about obscure corner cases.

          This leaves the question of motive. What's your beef with Postgres? It's an amazing database - reliable, fast, full-featured, well-documented, and free. There's nothing else that even comes close.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by hansg View Post

            And you post this same bullshit every time a Postgres article is posted, let's not forget that.

            Where files go depends entirely on your chosen OS (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesy...archy_Standard). If you don't like it, maybe Windows is a better choice for you? On Windows all of Postgres gets installed in a single directory under Program Files.

            Any developer is free to choose the license they like. Why exactly do you believe you have the right to complain?

            And as for standards compliance, the SQL standard is large and complex, and most people really don't care about obscure corner cases.

            This leaves the question of motive. What's your beef with Postgres? It's an amazing database - reliable, fast, full-featured, well-documented, and free. There's nothing else that even comes close.
            Yes, as far as clutter the Windows distribution of PostgreSQL is likely superior to the Linux one.
            Yes there is the FHS but that doesn't mean it have to be cluttered. All PostgreSQL-related binaries could have the pg_ prefix, but they don't. Which causes clutter, confusing and makes it difficult to differentiate binaries and how they relate.
            Also some software such as .NET Core group all the binaries under the "dotnet" command, example "dotnet restore", which is very convenient and a far better solution.

            Yes, of course any developer is free to choose the license they like, but its worse when instead of choosing an existing one, they create a new one. The results in license proliferation, increases total cost of ownership (TCO), companies might require lawyers to review the license before its installed, etc.

            I like standards and I do not want to get locked into a product. What's the benefit of open source if I am locked if the implementation is not standards-compliant and I get locked into software, then I might as well go with a proprietary database software instead.
            Learning product-specific implementations takes time and the application of that knowledge is limited, I would rather spend my time learning things that are standard and hence acquire knowledge and competence that is less limited to a specific to a product and more broadly applicable.

            My beef with PostgreSQL is the vanity license and the cluttered install.
            I do agree with you, it is an amazing database, it is reliable, fast, full-featured, well-documented, and free. I really like it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              And it will clutter your system with dozens of executables in /bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.
              [...]
              It has a weird, custom, vanity license instead of an established common open source license.
              [...]
              I guess as an expert you compile from source, don't you? Then please use --prefix=<your preferred installation path> when configuring. As per license, it's BSD/MIT-like so this is all right and preferred option here...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kgardas View Post

                I guess as an expert you compile from source, don't you? Then please use --prefix=<your preferred installation path> when configuring. As per license, it's BSD/MIT-like so this is all right and preferred option here...
                No, I don't compile from source. I use the Ubuntu packages that come from Debian.

                Despite the license being BSD/MIT-like, it is not the BSD License and it is not the MIT License. It is the "PostgreSQL License" which is a vanity license.
                Hence despite being BSD/MIT-like, it is a different license. Hence needs to go through legal review by company lawyers, makes software inventory management more difficult and increase the TCO.

                License proliferation is a problem. Vanity licenses are a problem.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  No, I don't compile from source. I use the Ubuntu packages that come from Debian.
                  So we have established that there are two ways to have no clutter: switch to Windows, or use a specific prefix while compiling. Debian chooses not to use that switch, despite the Postgres project providing the option. The thing you should therefore be complaining about is Debian. I would suggest you start posting that complaint in every Debian-related article here on Phoronix in the future, and leave the Postgres articles alone.

                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  Despite the license being BSD/MIT-like, it is not the BSD License and it is not the MIT License. It is the "PostgreSQL License" which is a vanity license.
                  Hence despite being BSD/MIT-like, it is a different license. Hence needs to go through legal review by company lawyers, makes software inventory management more difficult and increase the TCO.

                  License proliferation is a problem. Vanity licenses are a problem.
                  How does it make software inventory management more difficult? How does it increase TCO? Sorry, that's just BS. The kind of company where a lawyer is required to look at this is the kind of company that would happily sign a contract with Oracle, and would never even consider open source to begin with (unless it is delivered, at vast cost, by a trusted party such as IBM or Oracle). And even if you did need a lawyer to read three simple paragraphs of easily understandable English text, that lawyer would have to do that one time only. Once the license has been cleared, there is no further cost or difficulty.

                  Again, I don't see the point of your endlessly repeated negativity regarding Postgres.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hansg View Post
                    So we have established that there are two ways to have no clutter: switch to Windows, or use a specific prefix while compiling. Debian chooses not to use that switch, despite the Postgres project providing the option. The thing you should therefore be complaining about is Debian. I would suggest you start posting that complaint in every Debian-related article here on Phoronix in the future, and leave the Postgres articles alone.
                    Well Postres should have more than just a switch when compiling, it should have sensible defaults.

                    Originally posted by hansg View Post
                    How does it make software inventory management more difficult? How does it increase TCO? Sorry, that's just BS. The kind of company where a lawyer is required to look at this is the kind of company that would happily sign a contract with Oracle, and would never even consider open source to begin with (unless it is delivered, at vast cost, by a trusted party such as IBM or Oracle). And even if you did need a lawyer to read three simple paragraphs of easily understandable English text, that lawyer would have to do that one time only. Once the license has been cleared, there is no further cost or difficulty.

                    Again, I don't see the point of your endlessly repeated negativity regarding Postgres.
                    Because it complicates license compliance, takes resources for that, hence increases TCO.

                    Because the lawyer needs to clear it. That takes time, money, resources, delays.
                    With an commonly used license such as the BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache License or whatever then it might not even need to be cleared since the license has already been cleared for use before.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X