Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) - Mailing list pgsql-general

I'd agree that this is probably laziness, or to be fairer, a ROI issue,
and again comes down to MySql having more mindshare.

I was mainly saying that the statement "Ahh just run different instances
for each customer." doesn't sit very well with me, and I doubt it would
for any ISP.

I can't see much problem with pg_hba.conf, it would make the installation
automation a bit more "hacky" probably, because you'd probably write
shell/sed/awk scripts to modify the pg_hba.conf, and have to SIGHUP
postmaster.  It'd also makes it a bit hard to query the information in
said file from an automated website admin program, but doesn't seem like a
biggie.

I wasn't meaning to imply that *I* thought it was "too hard", just what I
got told by my ISP.  They could have meant many kinds of "hard", from "too
little time, too much to do" through to "I'm not so bright and the
database contractors too expensive".

Craig.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Unihost Web Hosting wrote:

> Hiya,
>
> As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and MySQL
> hosting to our customers.  We also offer shell access which simplifies
> things a little.  I'm a little confused as to why people find having
> auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem?  We never use the same
> passwords or pam for our DBs either, since it offers a little more
> security should one or the other be compromised.  If you use a tool like
> webmin, it not really any more complicated.  Anyone who complains about
> it being "too hard" to offer PG as a shared hosting option just hasn't
> investigated the possibility.
>
> In my experience, many ISPs and hosts don't offer it because they
> beleive the ROI (time, learning, extra maintenance, patching,
> updates,etc) will not good.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony.
>
> Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf.  This makes
> >>>managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
> >>>While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
> >>>a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider.  I am
> >>>currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
> >>>expressed interest, so I am not sure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ahh just run different instances for each customer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it?  A fairly low spec machine
> >with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database
> >for their blogs?
> >
> >My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely
> >connect to their mysql server from home.  If running sixty instances of
> >PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to
> >mention a whole lot of RAM?
> >
> >I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say
> >"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
> >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> >
>