Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
1–10 of 298 posts
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#2Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#3Indeed a sane choice
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#4Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?
Smug self-righteousness
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#5Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?
Smug self-righteousness
I’ll allow it. Years later, I’m still miffed at Graylog (centralized logging engine) for having required MongoDB for a small bit of auth and meta storage that could’ve easily been done in MySQL or PostgreSQL (RDS even), forcing the need for that much more ops work for a small Mongo cluster for HA. Everyone deprecating the use of Mongo is a welcoming turn of events.
I shall recall these dark days to the next generation as “NoSQL Madness”, or more colloquially, “my schema is my app layer”.
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#6Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?
Wow was MongoDB really that bad?
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smug self-righteousness
I’ll allow it. Years later, I’m still miffed at Graylog (centralized logging engine) for having required MongoDB for a small bit of auth and meta storage that could’ve easily been done in MySQL or PostgreSQL (RDS even), forcing the need for that much more ops work for a small Mongo cluster for HA. Everyone deprecating the use of Mongo is a welcoming turn of events. I shall recall these dark days to the next generatio…
Can you explain in more detail about “my schema is my app layer”?
EDIT: fixing autocorrect
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll allow it. Years later, I’m still miffed at Graylog (centralized logging engine) for having required MongoDB for a small bit of auth and meta storage that could’ve easily been done in MySQL or PostgreSQL (RDS even), forcing the need for that much more ops work for a small Mongo cluster for HA. Everyone deprecating the use of Mongo is a welcoming turn of events. I shall recall these dark days to the next generatio…
Can you explain in more detail about “my schema is my app layer”? EDIT: fixing autocorrect
MongoDB by default is (was? It’s been a while since I’ve used it) schemaless, which means all of your data validation must take place in your app instead of the database. Your data integrity is then only as good as your weakest validation.
Edit: scheme/schema autocorrect typos corrected. Thanks!
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#9Does someone have the time explain what NoSQL Mongo didn’t do that PostgreSQL does?
I guess I don’t really understand the structured SQL vs NoSQL when you aren’t accessing directly but via a program. I also don’t understand why they would have supported a NoSQL and object-relational at the same time at any point.
Re: Red Hat Satellite to standardize on PostgreSQL backend
#10Is there a word for a case of "I told you so" that went on for so long that it curdled from frustration, to despair, to cynicism, to a realignment of your understanding of the human project as something barely capable of tying its own shoes and making it out to the mailbox and back?
Wow was MongoDB really that bad?
Possible alternative headline: "Company weights in trade-offs of having two different database systems, decide to consolidate into a single one." :-)
They don't give too many reasons, but say that operationally it is gonna be easier for them to work with a single database than with two (no-brainer?)