Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PostgreSQL 10.1 Released

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic PostgreSQL 10.1 Released

    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

  • GreenReaper
    replied
    Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
    Hmm. is this a point release? Is the next one going to be 10.1.1 or 10.2? I've got a script that updates Postgres for my Gitlab installation and it checks to see if the minor version has changed and does a proper migration if it has. But if minor is the new patch number then I'll need to update it. Major.Minor.Patch
    Yes, it's the .1 patch version of the latest release, which is just version 10. They changed the numbering system.

    Leave a comment:


  • gilboa
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    I am a developer, so I just develop stuff.
    I just mentioned the things I dislike about PostgreSQL. But as far as technology goes, I am sure it is a really great databases.
    I am sure it is fast, secure, reliable, well documented and feature rich. I am not saying it is a bad piece of software.
    OK. Thanks for the clarification.

    I should point out that as a very heavy PGSQL user (w/ 100+TB DBs) PGSQL is indeed one amazing piece of software.

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by gilboa View Post

    Just wondering, as you are so quick to trash PGSQL, due to what-look-to-be-quite-funny-reasons, what exactly do you do with *your* database? How big is it?

    - Gilboa
    I am a developer, so I just develop stuff.
    I just mentioned the things I dislike about PostgreSQL. But as far as technology goes, I am sure it is a really great databases.
    I am sure it is fast, secure, reliable, well documented and feature rich. I am not saying it is a bad piece of software.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireBurn
    replied
    Hmm. is this a point release? Is the next one going to be 10.1.1 or 10.2? I've got a script that updates Postgres for my Gitlab installation and it checks to see if the minor version has changed and does a proper migration if it has. But if minor is the new patch number then I'll need to update it. Major.Minor.Patch

    Leave a comment:


  • gilboa
    replied
    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.
    Just wondering, as you are so quick to trash PGSQL, due to what-look-to-be-quite-funny-reasons, what exactly do you do with *your* database? How big is it?

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hansg
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kgardas
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X