PostgreSQL in mission-critical system

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Rune Teigen wrote:

Any views on the suitability of PostgreSQL for this task? Should we rather
go for a commercial solution? Any experience?

You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA)
know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any.
Just make sure you test a lot and go through some simulated disaster
scenarios to see just what you need to do to recover.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

At 06:17 AM 7/13/2002, Curt Sampson wrote:

You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA)
know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any.

Actually, I'd say, if you don't know any, PostgreSQL is much better than most.

I've installed (or tried to install) these databases on Linux:

MySQL
PostgreSQL
DB2
Oracle 8i

I completely failed to get DB2 or Oracle up and running - the system
requirements, disk partitions, etc., required are nearly incomprehensible
and they don't give you any human-comprehensible documentation.

MySQL has a very complicated user/table/permissions system, but very few
tuning parameters, so it is very easy to set up. (All its other drawbacks
relative to PostgreSQL have already been discussed.)

PostgreSQL is relatively easy to set up (the hardest part is setting it up
for multiple users and remote access - but that takes only a little while
of reading the pg_hba.conf and the createuser command), but probably harder
to tune well.

So, as Curt says, if you've never run any database on Linux - do yourself a
favor and use PostgreSQL if you have any but the most simple requirements
(for which MySQL would probably suffice).

Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use:

$ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients postgresql-doc
$ createdb mytest
$ psql mytest

and you're off and running.

Cheers,

Doug

Doug Fields sez:
} At 06:17 AM 7/13/2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
} >You should probably go with whatever database you (or your DBA)
} >know best. If you don't know any, PostgreSQL is as good as any.
}
} Actually, I'd say, if you don't know any, PostgreSQL is much better than
} most.

I would agree with that, but...

} I've installed (or tried to install) these databases on Linux:
}
} MySQL
} PostgreSQL
} DB2
} Oracle 8i
}
} I completely failed to get DB2 or Oracle up and running - the system
} requirements, disk partitions, etc., required are nearly incomprehensible
} and they don't give you any human-comprehensible documentation.

...I would disagree with that statement. I haven't tried Oracle, but DB2
7.1 was a pleasure to run on Linux, and only a little hard to install
because it comes as an rpm and I was using a Debian system. It was slightly
harder to deal with on Solaris, but that had more to do with installing it
on a single system in a large cluster with NIS and NFS running rather than
installing it on a standalone server. The documentation was, in general,
clear and once I set up a directory with reasonably named symlinks to the
PDF files on the CD (which followed the 8.3 naming scheme), it was easy to
learn what I needed to know.

The biggest problem I had was that the Java implementation I was using on
Linux had issues (all images and icons, though not widgets and menus, were
missing their red component) with displaying on X on one of the video cards
on the Sun I was using as my workstation.

} MySQL has a very complicated user/table/permissions system, but very few
} tuning parameters, so it is very easy to set up. (All its other drawbacks
} relative to PostgreSQL have already been discussed.)

I installed MySQL on my MacOS X box with ease, got it running, and rejected
it based on its lack of support for views, stored procedures, and foreign
key constraints within a week.

} PostgreSQL is relatively easy to set up (the hardest part is setting it up
} for multiple users and remote access - but that takes only a little while
} of reading the pg_hba.conf and the createuser command), but probably harder
} to tune well.

The only hardship PostgreSQL gave me was that the documentation for
external functions failed to cover MacOS X, therefore I spent a ridiculous
amount of time figuring out which flags to give the linker to produce a
library the postmaster could load.

} So, as Curt says, if you've never run any database on Linux - do yourself a
} favor and use PostgreSQL if you have any but the most simple requirements
} (for which MySQL would probably suffice).
}
} Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use:
}
} $ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients
} postgresql-doc
} $ createdb mytest
} $ psql mytest

I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in
versions in their stable tree. (Hrm, actually, is Woody the unstable tree?
If so, it's worth being clear, and even redundant, about that.)
The package in the stable tree is version 6.5.3. The unstable tree has
7.2.1, which is much better.

} and you're off and running.
} Cheers,
} Doug
--Greg

} Also - PostgreSQL on Debian/Woody is super-simple to use:
}
} $ apt-get install postgresql postgresql-dev postgresql-clients
} postgresql-doc
} $ createdb mytest
} $ psql mytest

I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in
versions in their stable tree. (Hrm, actually, is Woody the unstable tree?

Woody is the current "testing" branch, and has been frozen since the
beginning of May pending final release. The only updates that have happened
have been security related, just as in the stable release.

It is running 7.2.1 in the Woody release. Frankly, I've been running the
"testing" distribution since September and it works great.

Cheers,

Doug

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:15:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:

I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in
versions in their stable tree.

While it's true that Debian doesn't tend to have the latest and
greatest in stable (even right at the time stable comes out), the
PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So
the notoriety is not justified in this case. And one might argue
that the strong stability of Debian's stable release is a _reason_
to prefer it for servers.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue 
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M6K 3E3
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:15:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:

I'd be careful about recommending this. Debian is notoriously behind in
versions in their stable tree.

While it's true that Debian doesn't tend to have the latest and
greatest in stable (even right at the time stable comes out), the
PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So
the notoriety is not justified in this case.

I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The
maintainer is great, I agree, but it's just not Debian policy to keep
stable updated, beyond needed security fixes.

So seems to me Gregory Seidman was right. Unless you consider 6.5.3
up-to-date.

In fact, I'll bet a lot of Debian PostgreSQL users are running the
'testing' version, or compiled a newer version of PostgreSQL from source.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So

I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The

Sorry, I should have been clearer. You need to visit Mr Elphick's
page to get it:

<http://people.debian.org/~elphick/postgresql/index.html&gt;

Debian's policy is very clear that a new version of a package cannot
go into frozen (or statble) after the freeze. Backported bugfixes
can be introduced (I get the impression that a few exceptions have
been made for some packages, but it seems pretty rare), but not new
versions. Some package maintainers (Mr Elphick and the X package
maintainers among them) are willing to provide unofficial upgrade
packages for the stable branch, however.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue 
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M6K 3E3
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 19:39, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

PostgreSQL maintainer (Oliver Elphick) for Debian is very quick to
release .debs for stable for the most recent PostgreSQL release. So

I'm puzzled by that comment. Stable has 6.5.3 right now. The

Sorry, I should have been clearer. You need to visit Mr Elphick's
page to get it:

<http://people.debian.org/~elphick/postgresql/index.html&gt;

Debian's policy is very clear that a new version of a package cannot
go into frozen (or statble) after the freeze. Backported bugfixes
can be introduced (I get the impression that a few exceptions have
been made for some packages, but it seems pretty rare), but not new
versions. Some package maintainers (Mr Elphick and the X package
maintainers among them) are willing to provide unofficial upgrade
packages for the stable branch, however.

Regrettably, I am not as up-to-date as you believe. The main reason is
that the package doesn't build without changes on potato and I am too
short of time to do anything about it. Besides that, we're all waiting
for woody to become the new stable release - we've been holding our
breath since 1st May :-( and I'm not keen to put effort into something
that's almost dead. Lastly, anyone that cares about keeping up-to-date
will probably be running woody anyway.

--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK
http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"But my God shall supply all your need according to his
riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 01:33:06AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:

Regrettably, I am not as up-to-date as you believe. The main reason is
that the package doesn't build without changes on potato and I am too
short of time to do anything about it. Besides that, we're all waiting
for woody to become the new stable release - we've been holding our

Well, that'll teach me to speak without looking at a web site (I'm
running woody, so I haven't exactly been paying attention). Still ,
you did release packages for 7.0.x and 7.1.x, so the claim that one
is stuck witg 6.5.x under Debian stable is still not fair.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue 
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M6K 3E3
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110