3 ms·

Postgres was an option for production along MySQL and SQLite3 was suggested for development instances. Sqlite3 is still supported. The mentioned why they dropp

by jlmn 9y ago

Postgres was an option for production along MySQL and SQLite3 was suggested for development instances. Sqlite3 is still supported. The mentioned why they dropped it here: https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/ https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/ > Without active community support, Postgres has always been, and always will be a second-class citizen. For that reason, we are dropping official Postgres support from Ghost core.

andrewbarba 9y ago
This is incorrect, Postgres was always second class. I know because I tried my best to keep it running on postgres for months, back the 0.5.x days, and it was always a source of frustration.
- seanwilson 9y ago
  What kinds of problems did it have? Why is it so difficult to support MySQL and Postgres at the same time, and why would MySQL be prioritised?
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > why would MySQL be prioritised? "Because it's easier to slap a system together on MySQL". Which, to be fair, it is but that's not a good thing when you're talking about data.
    - seanwilson 9y ago
      Why is it easier though?
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        Because it was a lot easier to deal with permissions, you could write "SQL" rather than SQL, it was very lax with SQL keywords as table names (ie. you could create a table called 'user'), replication didn't involve selling your soul to several devils, etc. It's like Rails - it's easy to slap something up but once you start using it in anger, it requires all the handholding and effort.
    - e12e 9y ago
      Probably not that - but Ghost was born in many ways as "a better wordpress" (or a not batshit crazy mess of old code and not properly namespaced plugins and themes). The model it replaces/improves on is self-host on shared-hosting web hosts. That used to be php and mysql - I guess they kept mysql, even if nodejs doesn't lend itself to the same type of shared hosting as php does (in fact, neither does php, but that's a battle for another day). Anyway, many hosting services will throw in a database instance on a more-or-less well-managed mysql cluster - at a minimum there might be some semi-regular backups of the database, with some automation for doing restores (and with more than a bit of luck, they'll keep snapshots, so that the sql injection that wiped your database haven't resulted in all-empty backups by the time you realize). I don't think it makes much sense, but I doubt it is because "postgres is hard, mysql is easy".
  - erisds 9y ago
    I answered this question in as much detail as possible in the blog post I wrote at the time (which was also linked in the above comment) https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/ https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/
- jlmn 9y ago
  You're correct. I've edited my comment for clarity.

by jlmn 9y ago

andrewbarba 9y ago

This is incorrect, Postgres was always second class. I know because I tried my best to keep it running on postgres for months, back the 0.5.x days, and it was always a source of frustration.

seanwilson 9y ago
What kinds of problems did it have? Why is it so difficult to support MySQL and Postgres at the same time, and why would MySQL be prioritised?
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > why would MySQL be prioritised? "Because it's easier to slap a system together on MySQL". Which, to be fair, it is but that's not a good thing when you're talking about data.
  - seanwilson 9y ago
    Why is it easier though?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      Because it was a lot easier to deal with permissions, you could write "SQL" rather than SQL, it was very lax with SQL keywords as table names (ie. you could create a table called 'user'), replication didn't involve selling your soul to several devils, etc. It's like Rails - it's easy to slap something up but once you start using it in anger, it requires all the handholding and effort.
  - e12e 9y ago
    Probably not that - but Ghost was born in many ways as "a better wordpress" (or a not batshit crazy mess of old code and not properly namespaced plugins and themes). The model it replaces/improves on is self-host on shared-hosting web hosts. That used to be php and mysql - I guess they kept mysql, even if nodejs doesn't lend itself to the same type of shared hosting as php does (in fact, neither does php, but that's a battle for another day). Anyway, many hosting services will throw in a database instance on a more-or-less well-managed mysql cluster - at a minimum there might be some semi-regular backups of the database, with some automation for doing restores (and with more than a bit of luck, they'll keep snapshots, so that the sql injection that wiped your database haven't resulted in all-empty backups by the time you realize). I don't think it makes much sense, but I doubt it is because "postgres is hard, mysql is easy".
- erisds 9y ago
  I answered this question in as much detail as possible in the blog post I wrote at the time (which was also linked in the above comment) https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/ https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/
jlmn 9y ago
You're correct. I've edited my comment for clarity.