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

PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

postgresql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 162 posts

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#41

Post by Keyframe »

eropple wrote: post #33
Scarbutt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest ;) SQL Server is such an expensive beast, ~$15K per core, what are your reasons for prefering it over PG?

I quite like Postgres and use it preferentially, but your numbers are off. SQL Server Enterprise costs more like $7500/core; that $15K pack, as far as I am aware, comes with two core licenses. SQL Server Standard 2016 costs $931 for a license if you use CALs ($209 a pop), or $3700/core. Also bear in mind that almost nobody pays list price for any of this.

$7500 per core, but only $15,000 for two cores sounds like a sweet deal though.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#42

Post by brightball »

cglace wrote: post #37
brightball wrote: post #34

It's hard to believe that Google Cloud SQL still only has 9.6 available. EDIT: Apparently 11.1 is available in beta as of April 9th.

Actually, 11 is now in Beta. If you create a new instance it is listed as an option.

I tested it just before I posted the comment (to confirm) and didn't see it listed. Maybe it depends on your account?

EDIT: I'll try again. Looks like it was added April 9th

https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/postgres/create-instance

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#43

Post by cromantin »

rooam-dev wrote: post #39

Question for PG happy users. How do you manage failover and replication? At my previous job this was done by a consultant. Is this doable on a self hosted setup? Thank you in advance.

We've been doing replication for 3+ years with zolando patroni. It works great. We run pg in docker and patroni too. First it was patroni with consul and right now its patroni with kubernes store (it store leader in endpoint). Highly recommend. There are other popular tools for this, it just a preference.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#44

Post by eberkund »

I maintain a couple of MySQL based applications. I don't really use any features outside of "standard SQL" is there a reason to switch over to Pg? I haven't used Pg before and usually default to MySQL.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#45

Post by sargun »

micmil wrote: post #4

I'm not a database guy so have no clue, but why are there so many versions receiving support? Is there just that much legacy crap they can't get away from, like Python?

1) It's stateful, so upgrades also have to upgrade the state (MBs, GBs, TBs of data)

2) It's horrifically high risk because downgrading is usually not a thing

3) It usually requires downtime.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#46

Post by giovannibonetti »

ape4 wrote: post #40
dspillett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean, there are other sql servers.

Good to know! Can you give an example? When I google "SQL Server" it seems like most results are related to MS SQL Server

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#47

Post by kumarvvr »

Question from a Python web developer. (Django mainly, exploring Flask presently)

For a complex web-app, would you suggest an ORM (looking at SQLAlchemy) or a custom module with hand written queries and custom methods for conversion to python objects?

My app has a lot of complex queries, joins, etc. and the data-model is most likely to change quite a bit as the app nears production. I feel using an ORM is an unnecessary layer of abstraction in the thinking process. I feel comfortable with direct SQL queries, and in some cases, want to directly get JSON results from PGSQL itself.

Would that be a good idea, and more importantly, scalable?

Note : My app will be solely developed by me, not expecting to have a team or even another developer work on it.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#48

Post by jadbox »

mevile wrote: post #30
Tomdarkness wrote: post #19

Totally wish we could upgrade but for some reason AWS have still not implemented any upgrade path for Aurora PostgreSQL other than dump and reimport despite apparently working on it for a year...

Does AWS Aurora actually use postgres or is it simply a postgres compatible API on top of their own technology?

I'm pretty sure it's a fork of PG based on my experience.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

ape4 wrote: post #40
dspillett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean, there are other sql servers.

> It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean there are other sql servers.

I don't mind that; sure, there are other RDBMS servers that support SQL as their main or exclusive language, but unless you are talking about ancient Sybase products (for which there is a very good reason for the shared branding) “SQL Server” is a clear, exclusive Microsoft product identity and not any worse of a label, say, FTP (yes, there are other file transfer protocols).

OTOH,what does bug me is when people say “SQL” to mean “Microsoft SQL Server”.

Post reply on HN