Re: Can I get some PostgreSQL developer feedback on these five general issues I have with PostgreSQL and its ecosystem? - Mailing list pgsql-general

On 9/24/20 10:40 PM, tutiluren@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
>     Well not partial as in incremental. Instead dump only some portion
>     of the schema with or without its associated data.
> 
> It's funny that you should bring that up, considering how it was one of 
> my points... See the point about pg_dump's bug on Windows.

Yes, I read your bug 
report(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/MCk38UV--3-2@tutanota.com) 
and you where just as resistant to advice there as here.

> 
>         I'm saying that PostGIS has a bug due to incorrectly constructed
>         internal queries which makes it impossible to properly name the
>         schema where PostGIS is to reside, causing my database to look
>         very ugly when it has to say "postgis" instead of "PostGIS" for
>         PostGIS's schema. And that was an example of how sloppy/bad
>         third-party things always are, and is one reason why I don't
>         like it when I have to rely on "extensions".
> 
> 
>     If that is the sum of your issues with PostGIS then I really don't
>     have much sympathy.
> 
> Why does nobody understand that it was an *example* and not some kind of 
> full PostGIS review?
> 
>     They are extensions so you aren't required to use them and rely on
>     their way of doing things. You have the choice of writing your own
>     code/extension or do without completely.
> 
> It sure is great to have such choices... I can't take it seriously when 
> people say things like this. It's similar to "it's open source so you 
> can easily vet it yourself". It's not taking reality into consideration 
> at all.
> 
> As for doing without it, that would make it impossible to deal with GPS 
> coordinates/maps. So it's not really a choice at all.

Read this issue from PostGIS:

https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3496

" Then we can use the variable @extschema@ in lieu of the actual schema 
name. This will still allow users to do:

CREATE EXTENSION postgis SCHEMA whereever_I_damn_want_you_to_be;
"


>     It is more then that. It would have to take into account the
>     behavior changes that happen in Postgres between major versions. It
>     also would have to account for OS specific parameters and the
>     changes that happen there between OS versions. It also would need to
>     'know' how the database was going to be used; readonly, heavy
>     writes, etc. Also how the database should play with other programs
>     on the same machine. Add to the mix containers, cloud instances and
>     so on and you are outrunning the ability of 'ifs' to handle it.
> 
> If it changes that much, it's far, far worse than I even thought, and it 
> sounds like it will be pointless to even *try* to learn it as it keeps 
> changing between versions/OSes/other stuff.

Life is not static. If you want to stay current you have to keep learning.

> 
> I can't help but feel as if people just don't want to answer this and 
> other concerns I have. As if there's some silent agreement along the 
> lines of "securing PG DBAs' jobs".

The reason people have not answered is you have not provided the 
information necessary to formulate an answer. For instance, OS & 
version, Postgres version, size of data, database use case, number of 
users.


>     The thing is 'general mode' is going to mean something different to
>     someone running a database in the MB-low GB range vs. high GB vs. TB
>     vs. PB.
> 
> I don't mean this to sound rude, but it's like talking to a wall... What 
> I mean is that there are obviously technical means for software to know 
> whether they are exhausting the system they are running on or not, and 
> expecting people to understand all these intricate internal parameters 
> is just... bizarre. There ought to be some kind of "abstract" setting 
> for those of us who aren't able to (or even *wish* to) comprehend all 
> the PG internals, and just want an efficient database using (roughly) as 
> much of our machine as we want.
> 
> This is not the first time I feel like I'm repeating myself over and 
> over in different ways but never getting through. It could be that you 
> are so familiar with PG's internals that it all is obvious to you, but 
> it could just as well be that you don't want to hear about this.

No I am not all that familiar with the Postgres internals. I'm an end 
user for what qualifies as small databases. The configuration as is 
works for me, in that any impediments it might impose are hidden by 
other parts of the stack. I just know, from years on this list, that 
there are folks who would help you with configuration given some 
starting point information.



-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com