8 ms·
PostgreSQL 13 Beta 1 Released
- cryptonector 6y ago> PostgreSQL 13 continues to improve operability on Windows, as now users who run PostgreSQL on Windows now have the option to connect over UNIX domain sockets. I'm curious about this!
- ComputerGuru 6y agoWindows 10 brought in support for AF_UNIX: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/af_unix-comes-to-windows/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/af_unix-comes-to-...
- cryptonector 6y agoNice! Thanks for the link!
- jabl 6y agoZheap didn't make it?
- Tostino 6y agoNot yet, they have done much work on the pluggable storage API, but I haven't seen much discussion on the mailing list at all about zheap in a while but work seems to continue with it.
- jfbaro 6y agoPluggable storage would potentially be useful for YugaByte as well. PostgreSQL will see even more innovation in the years to come. Well done PostgreSQL community.
- Tostino 6y agoSuper excited for the improvements to btree indexes, that is some interesting work and very impressive results. The improvements to pg_stat_statements will be very welcome too!
- jacobkg 6y agoAs someone still on Postgres 9.6, does anyone have advice on how to make the business case for upgrading to 10, 11, or 12? I want to upgrade but I have a hard time articulating the benefits against the costs of downtime and risk
- skeletal88 6y agoThere are no other risks than the chance that you somehow mess up the upgrade, delete the wrong files, etc. Planning and practicing the upgrade process helps against these risks. What I most waited for was improved replication and table partitioning support. These were must haves for us.
- Tostino 6y agoThe other thing that helps with these risks is having a properly managed backup system. If you can always just practice the upgrade on a new machine, or easily roll back if the upgrade does fail.
- ksec 6y ago> make the business case On the assumption right now there may be less people using the services and may be the least disruptive if anything goes down. Upgrading now means you have less hassle in the future.
- briffle 6y agoI am in the same boat. It appears 9.6 is still supported until Nov 2021 [0] but I plan to look at moving up to 12 here either this summer, or next spring. I know partitioning is drastically improved, but we currently don't use it in our data (but need to start looking at it) [0]https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
- nix23 6y agoWell i am too on 9.6 its still supported and i have absolutely no problems with it, but maybe you find here some "must have's" : https://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix/ https://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix/
- rnikander 6y agoI find it frustrating that stored procedures can't start and stop transactions. Without that ability, you can't really move application logic into the database. [edit: Doh, I'm wrong. Sorry. I'll leave the comment here.]
- petereisentraut 6y agoSure they can. See example here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-transactions.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-transactions...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Tostino 6y agoYou're a release behind with that as the other person who replied said. I've made use of them for helping manage ETL flows between my DW and OLTP database.
- abrookewood 6y agoSlightly off-topic, but how comfortable are people with using stored procedures nowadays? I had developers in the past swear by them and I know that the early version of CloudFlare was almost entirely built using stored procs. On the other hand, I've had others who view them as something to be avoided at all costs.
- kcolford 6y agoAm I the only one eagerly waiting on postgres to transition away from the process per connection model? It seems like that is the only glaring con for postgres compared to SQL server. This would really put the nail in coffin for MySQL and other alternatives.
- ComodoHacker 6y agoWhat's so wrong with that model?
- ComputerGuru 6y agoIt doesn’t scale and makes some abstractions more difficult.
- claytonjy 6y agohow about pgBouncer for connection pooling? I know it's more operational overhead, but is that still not good enough for your use case?
- ComodoHacker 6y agoHow far does it need to scale? Times of two-tier apps are gone, middle tier has it's own pooling.
- pgaddict 6y agoIdeally thousands (and maybe even tens of thousands) of connections. At the moment we're quite far from that, as the benchmarks in the thread [1] demonstrate (low hundreds, I'd say). There's an awful lot of applications designed with the idea that connections are cheap. And on some databases it's actually true. But it's also about hardware - machines with hundreds of cores are getting quite common, applications have "think time" so you need to use a multiple of core count to saturate the CPU, etc. Currently the limit is probably "low hundreds" depending on the workload (the shorter/cheaper the transactions, the worse). Connection pools are great, but unfortunately not really a universal solution. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200301083601.ews6hz5dduc3w2se%40alap3.anarazel.de https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200301083601.ew...
- philliphaydon 6y agoThe only thing I want for PostgreSQL is a better backup/restore. SqlServer is so easy. You backup a database and restore it and never have any issues. You connect the users in the instance to the users in the database and away you go. PostgreSQL will allow a backup and then epic fail on the restore if you don’t have users and roles etc pre defined. It’s the hardest thing to achieve in PostgreSQL.
- mistrial9 6y ago> epic fail on the restore if you don’t have users and roles ?? in my lonely research world, the PG backup defaults and restore behavior have always been gentle and predictable. I generally backup per-database, never by cluster
- philliphaydon 6y agoI’ve never successfully backed up a single database and restored it on a clean instance of PostgreSQL. It always fails on roles not existing. If I create all the roles up front then it works. But it’s a hassle compared to SQLServer where I can backup, restore, create a user and link him to the database user. And it’s done.
- jeffdavis 6y agoAre you using pg_dump or pg_dumpall? The latter will backup the global objects (like roles) as well. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pg-dumpall.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pg-dumpall.html
- stilist 6y agoAn alternative, which I think I borrowed from how Heroku does/did dumps, is 'pg_dump --no-acl --no-owner'.
- AlfeG 6y agoThere is an option to omit roles on backup `--no-owner` https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgdump.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgdump.html
- arusahni 6y agoStill hoping for a transaction manager so I can implement 2PC using postgres_fdw.
- skyde 6y agoI don't know your use-case exactly but every distributed system engineer should know that 2PC is extremely dangerous. It is a blocking protocol, This mean if the coordinator crash , some participants will never resolve their transactions. After a participant has sent an agreement message to the coordinator, it will completely block until a commit or rollback is received from the coordinator but this will never happen.
- arusahni 6y agoThanks for the warning - I agree that there are dragons. I have some well-constrained use-cases, and would love to obviate the need for "yet another microservice."
- garyclarke27 6y agoI love Postgres, it’s an incredible piece of software, I have to say though, this is the least exciting update I’ve seen, in the last 10 years that I’ve been using it. Probably because it’s now so capable, the only major missing feature for me is, automatic incremental update to materialized views, one of the few important remaining advantages that Oracle has over Postgres.
- Tostino 6y agoThis release had quite a few patches that just weren't quite ready to go out yet, so were not included. There was some work done which reduces the per-connection overhead and allows many many more direct PG connections before performance degrades, while increasing overall performance with high connection counts by a ton...but it just wasn't quite ready and missed the deadline by a little. The memory based stats collector is another patch in the same vein, where it wasn't quite ready for 13. That said, many of these features are quite impressive and will offer nice wins for many workloads, incremental sorting is very cool, as is the memory bound hash aggregation. I'm with you on automatically updated materialized views, it's been something i've needed and been waiting for a long while now, and I am hoping it gets more focus. The current patch-set being worked on for it seems to have quite a few limitations.
- combatentropy 6y ago> I have to say though, this is the least exciting update I’ve seen I agree. For me, it is a sign of maturity. It's not the only sign. It could be a sign of stagnation! But from what I know, having used it for over a decade, I am happy to be in the midst of "boring software", at least for my database.