PostgreSQL 12 Due Out Tomorrow With Better Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: PostgreSQL 12 Due Out Tomorrow With Better Performance

Tomorrow is when PostgreSQL 12.0 should meet the world for this popular open-source SQL database server...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=PostgreSQL-12.0-Tomorrow

[nkukard]

Is it possible to include a comparison with the latest versions of MariaDB, Percona and MySQL too?

[Michael]

Is it possible to include a comparison with the latest versions of MariaDB, Percona and MySQL too?

Unlikely unless someone submits test profiles for Percona and MySQL. Plus my current MariaDB test profile is situated differently from my PostgreSQL test profile, so not a direct comparison, and too much time/resources involved unless there was enough tips to cover costs.

[FireBurn]

It's been tagged in git, I'm already testing it on my gitlab instance

[uid313]

PostgreSQL really is very full of features. Feature-wise it is really good.
I wish it has a real license, instead of a vanity license though, and a better more sane userspace (the user space is inconsistent, unpredictable and confusing with lots of scattered binaries), and good administration utilities.

[alcalde]

PostgreSQL really is very full of features. Feature-wise it is really good.
I wish it has a real license, instead of a vanity license though, and a better more sane userspace (the user space is inconsistent, unpredictable and confusing with lots of scattered binaries), and good administration utilities.

How is the PostgreSQL license not a real license? The license lets you do anything you want with it so long as you don't hold U of C accountable. It's extremely short and readable:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

What specifically is "inconsistent" or "unpredictable" about interacting with PostgreSQL?

[zboszor]

How is the PostgreSQL license not a real license? The license lets you do anything you want with it so long as you don't hold U of C accountable. It's extremely short and readable:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

What specifically is "inconsistent" or "unpredictable" about interacting with PostgreSQL?

Possibly he calls the historical accidents (that are "createdb", "createuser" and so on) inconsistent, comparing with newer utilities in PostgreSQL that are prefixed with "pg_". And yes, it's actually inconsistent but they are long set in stone. Historical accidents happen that seemed like a good idea at the time, like the "creat" function in C. You can't rename it to "create" now.

The original utility names were already there in Postgres95 (this was the version in 1995 that replaced the query language POSTQUEL with standard SQL) and I suspect even before that when the project was still called POSTGRES, in capitals, no SQL, those utilities existed. You can't change a habit with over 30 years of history. It's called tradition at this point and newcomers should just accept the way it is without calling names.

[uid313]

How is the PostgreSQL license not a real license? The license lets you do anything you want with it so long as you don't hold U of C accountable. It's extremely short and readable:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

What specifically is "inconsistent" or "unpredictable" about interacting with PostgreSQL?

Because it is a license created by PostgreSQL instead of using an already existing widely spread, common license that states the same thing, such as the BSD License, ISC license or the MIT license.

Some utilities are prefixed with pg_ while others are not. It is confusing because "createuser" sounds like something that adds a user to the system, not PostgreSQL. It is confusing because if I have MongoDB and PostgreSQL installed, then how am I supposed to know which database "createdb" creates a database for?

Possibly he calls the historical accidents (that are "createdb", "createuser" and so on) inconsistent, comparing with newer utilities in PostgreSQL that are prefixed with "pg_". And yes, it's actually inconsistent but they are long set in stone. Historical accidents happen that seemed like a good idea at the time, like the "creat" function in C. You can't rename it to "create" now.

The original utility names were already there in Postgres95 (this was the version in 1995 that replaced the query language POSTQUEL with standard SQL) and I suspect even before that when the project was still called POSTGRES, in capitals, no SQL, those utilities existed. You can't change a habit with over 30 years of history. It's called tradition at this point and newcomers should just accept the way it is without calling names.

Yeah, that. But the tooling is also non-modern with dozens of scattered binaries, compared to tools like dotnet, apt and git. With Git you do all Git-related operations using the "git" tool.

[zboszor]

Yeah, that. But the tooling is also non-modern with dozens of scattered binaries, compared to tools like dotnet, apt and git. With Git you do all Git-related operations using the "git" tool.

You can just use "psql" and run the SQL commands that are exposed in those utilities. See, PostgreSQL does have a consistent interface.

[aht0]

Some utilities are prefixed with pg_ while others are not. It is confusing because "createuser" sounds like something that adds a user to the system, not PostgreSQL. It is confusing because if I have MongoDB and PostgreSQL installed, then how am I supposed to know which database "createdb" creates a database for?

Fair point.
Tho, you could check through commandline where's the binary located at or just try "man createuser" and see what would be written in it's 'man' file.