Thread: Binaries vs Source
Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799% Through operating system update tool 127 35.475% ~66% Compile from source 98 27.374% Hmmm, are we doing something with this information? I am not an expert at all, but I reccon that these numbers are at least a surprise to me. -- Guido Barosio ----------------------- http://www.globant.com guido.barosio@globant.com
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:42:51 -0700 "Guido Barosio" <gbarosio@gmail.com> wrote: > Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799% > Through operating system update tool 127 35.475% > ~66% > > Compile from source 98 27.374% > > Hmmm, are we doing something with this information? I am not an expert > at all, but I reccon that these numbers are at least a surprise to me. > Why is it a surprise? -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Joshua, *... a surprise to me* ---> Though *compile* would beat other methods. gb.- On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:42:51 -0700 > "Guido Barosio" <gbarosio@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799% >> Through operating system update tool 127 35.475% >> ~66% >> >> Compile from source 98 27.374% >> >> Hmmm, are we doing something with this information? I am not an expert >> at all, but I reccon that these numbers are at least a surprise to me. >> > > Why is it a surprise? > > -- > The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ > United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > > > -- Guido Barosio ----------------------- http://www.globant.com guido.barosio@globant.com
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:02:06 -0700 "Guido Barosio" <gbarosio@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, > > *... a surprise to me* ---> Though *compile* would beat other methods. > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from source won. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Joshua Drake wrote: > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from source Given that PG does not do in-place upgrades, I don't see a benefit to using binary packages. Upgrading a source install is as easy as upgrading a binary install given you have to do a dump/restore anyway. Or am I missing something? - Naz.
Naz wrote: > Joshua Drake wrote: > > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from source > > Given that PG does not do in-place upgrades, I don't see a benefit to > using binary packages. Upgrading a source install is as easy as > upgrading a binary install given you have to do a dump/restore anyway. > > Or am I missing something? The upgrading might not be different, but the *installing* is much simpler. With apt/yum/ports you can have PostgreSQL installed with literally 5 seconds of work and 2 minutes of waiting. With a source install, you need to download, unpack, install dependencies, configure with all the options, make install, set up paths, set up data directory, initdb, write or obtain start script, set up start script, set up log files, set up log rotation, and other things. Even thinking up that list takes longer than a binary install. And you cannot do these things in less than 10 minutes, and if you are a first-time or occasional user, then it will probably take you an hour or more to do it properly.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:48:29 +0300 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > Naz wrote: > > Joshua Drake wrote: > > > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from > > > source > And you break dependencies (from source). Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 10:42 -0700, Guido Barosio wrote:
> Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799%
We have 2000+ users in yum repository ;)
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
Attachment
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 10:42 -0700, Guido Barosio wrote: >> Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799% > > We have 2000+ users in yum repository ;) We certainly had more than 121 downloads ;-) These are people who voted on the survey, if that wasn't clear.... //Magnus
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 22:41 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> These are people who voted
> on the survey, if that wasn't clear....
One of them was me :-P
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
Devrim G�ND�Z wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 10:42 -0700, Guido Barosio wrote: > > Binary package from www.postgresql.org 121 33.799% > > We have 2000+ users in yum repository ;) These changes have _got_ to be increasing adoption; I only wish we had made non-source downloads easier earlier. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > Naz wrote: >> >> Joshua Drake wrote: >> > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from source >> >> Given that PG does not do in-place upgrades, I don't see a benefit to >> using binary packages. Upgrading a source install is as easy as upgrading a >> binary install given you have to do a dump/restore anyway. >> >> Or am I missing something? > > The upgrading might not be different, but the *installing* is much simpler. > With apt/yum/ports you can have PostgreSQL installed with literally 5 > seconds of work and 2 minutes of waiting. With a source install, you need > to download, unpack, install dependencies, configure with all the options, > make install, set up paths, set up data directory, initdb, write or obtain > start script, set up start script, set up log files, set up log rotation, > and other things. Even thinking up that list takes longer than a binary > install. And you cannot do these things in less than 10 minutes, and if you > are a first-time or occasional user, then it will probably take you an hour > or more to do it properly. > OTOH, if you install from sources you can install patches as soon as they are committed... then you can always have your installation at the most recent minor version... and of course more protected from bugs. -- regards, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 20:52 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>
> OTOH, if you install from sources you can install patches as soon as
> they are committed... then you can always have your installation at
> the most recent minor version... and of course more protected from
> bugs.
Heh :) So you assume that the patches are well-tested before committing,
and they have no bugs?
...also what you wrote can be done easily with the binary packages.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
Attachment
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 20:52 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> OTOH, if you install from sources you can install patches as soon as >> they are committed... then you can always have your installation at >> the most recent minor version... and of course more protected from >> bugs. > > Heh :) So you assume that the patches are well-tested before committing, > and they have no bugs? > eh! i was thinking in bug fixes... > ...also what you wrote can be done easily with the binary packages. really? how? at least i think i'll have to wait until the binary package to be released -- regards, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157
Hi, On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:02 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > ...also what you wrote can be done easily with the binary packages. > > really? how? at least i think i'll have to wait until the binary > package to be released The RPM infrastructure for yum.pgsqlrpms.org lets people build their packages on their servers. All you need is to checkout SVN, enter relevant directory (for example, redhat/8.3/postgresql/EL-5) and run make build there. You will need to install rpmdevtools package to use this feature. It downloads tarballs, and builds RPMs. If you want to build a snapshot tarball, here is a basic procedure that I use on my laptop to generate 8.4devel tarballs: https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/pgcore/wiki/PostgreSQLCVSSnapshotTarballHowTo I'm using that script. Just edit it and make it 8.3.4-2 (or such) whenever you want. Edit RPM specfile, and then you are good to go. Actually I have a *plan* to build weekly snaphots of stable branches, but I'm waiting for governments to extend a day from 24 hours to 30 hours for that. It is doable with yum -- like using "pgdg83-testing" channel or so. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org