Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New in PostgreSQL 10

wiki.postgresql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 258 posts

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#101

Post by grzm »

manigandham wrote: post #88
jackmott wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!

SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...

Let's not let this devolve into a db war. This submission is about PostgreSQL 10. Your parent expresses how easy it is for them to get PostgreSQL up and running in their environment—no comparison saying that others are bad (edit: though they did have some difficulty in the past). It's great that you've got a good solution that works for you! And I'm sure there are other ways of doing this as well for other dbs. If you have experience with PostgreSQL and SQL Server features that you'd like to compare that are relevant to these PostgreSQL release notes, please do share them constructively. I'm sure there are people that would be interested in hearing about them.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#102

Post by zackelan »

manigandham wrote: post #88
jackmott wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!

SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...

That strikes me as being comparable only at the most superficial level. I started that SQL Server container and it's using 825mb of RAM (according to systemd-cgtop), just sitting there idle with no data in it. I started a Postgres 9.6 container also using their official Docker container and it's sitting idle at 58mb of RAM.

Insult to injury, if you're using Docker in a VM (as you must on a Mac) the instructions on that Docker Hub page say you need a minimum of 3.25GB RAM dedicated to the VM. That's quite a heavy lift if all you want is a database instance for local development.

And then sure, you could run SQL Server on Linux for your production instances, but you're well off the beaten path. You're going to have to roll your own infrastructure rather than relying on AWS RDS, Google Cloud SQL, Heroku, etc etc. And the moment you have a performance problem the first advice you'll hear seems likely to be "try it on Windows and see if it reproduces there".

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#103

Post by manigandham »

grzm wrote: post #101
manigandham wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...

Let's not let this devolve into a db war. This submission is about PostgreSQL 10. Your parent expresses how easy it is for them to get PostgreSQL up and running in their environment—no comparison saying that others are bad (edit: though they did have some difficulty in the past). It's great that you've got a good solution that works for you! And I'm sure there are other ways of doing this as well for other dbs. If yo…

Where's the db war? The comment was implying that MSSQL wasnt as easy to install and I offered advice for the latest version. Neither database is really production ready with a 1 line install but it seems you're finding conflict that doesnt exist.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#104

Post by aidos »

dantiberian wrote: post #59

What is the current best option for Postgres failover? I looked at this at the start of the year, and found lots of options, but all of them seemed to have various drawbacks, and none were natively supported or built-in to Postgres.

This is a bit outside my area of expertise. Not sure about the best way to do the automated promotion process, but looking through these docs there's mention of a change to libpq that allows you to specify all the potential hosts and then have it only connect to whichever one is accepting writes (target_session_attrs).

http://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-10-libpq-read-write...

Edit to add: I'm also interested to hear the approaches people use here. Today we've been setting up WAL-E to run our db backups so we're in that headspace. I'd actually like to decommission my main db server and provision another one to take its place. Getting the new one up and running from the wal-e archives is easy enough, the switch-over is a little more complex.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#105

Post by flukus »

manigandham wrote: post #88
jackmott wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!

SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...

You left out the licensing step, working out what license you need is it's own time sink.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#106

Post by martin_marques »

dantiberian wrote: post #59

What is the current best option for Postgres failover? I looked at this at the start of the year, and found lots of options, but all of them seemed to have various drawbacks, and none were natively supported or built-in to Postgres.

There is no native solution as there is no unique scenario regarding failover. Some people prefer to do fencing using network tools like firewall rules or managed switches, other just reconfigure their applications connection string to remove the failed node, or even reconfigure connections with a middle-ware like pgbouncer. There surely are other fencing solutions that don't come to my mind now, and others I don't even know of. For failover you can use tools like repmgr which provides automatic failover, or set up your own monitoring which can either trigger an alert to your pager and you run the failover. Or you have it trigger some configuration manager to reset the nodes (I strongly suggest using Ansible ;) ) This is what makes postgres flexible, as it's not tied to one solution.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#107

Post by TCM »

manigandham wrote: post #88
jackmott wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!

SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...

I had issues with the docker container on Debian 9. I think the container is only tested on Ubuntu.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#108

Post by Thaxll »

imtringued wrote: post #47
SEJeff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "big data"? You can buy normal tier 1 server vendor hardware with 6T of memory. If it fits into 1 machine or a few, it isn't "big data".

To be honest 6 TB of data isn't that much. I'd say big data starts at around one petabyte because one petabyte requires 3 servers with 45 [1] 8TB hdds. At this point your data is so large it's impossible to store it on a single physical machine. "big data" usually doesn't require transactions though or at least no transactions across servers so you could probably get away with sharding postgresql via citus. [1] http:…

Except that it's just stupid to do that, you don't want to store that much data in one host, it goes against any sane architecture design, good luck when you're mb / cpu dies. Splitting data on smaller / cheap hosts is the way to go for ops / scaling / backups.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#109

Post by xfalcox »

What happens if I try to insert into a master partition table, and there are no child tables that can store my data?

For example, data is partitioned by month, and I have no table for the month in the data I'm trying to insert.

Re: New in PostgreSQL 10

#110

Post by deepsun »

pdimitar wrote: post #79
merb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are they? even without ssl? by default?

Not sure about SSL, but in the past customers of mine have copy-pasted full Heroku PG URLs to me and I was able to get in via `psql` immediately. So yes they're public but their addresses are basically impossible to guess.

Sometimes people do a conference talk or just share the screen, and it's easy to take picture of that URL.
Post reply on HN