Postgres Now the Default Database for Mac OS X Server(momjian.us)
momjian.us
Postgres Now the Default Database for Mac OS X Server
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2011.html#July_25_2011
9 comments
Whatever are you talking about? We've been using PostgreSQL in production for 5+ years now, and it's been capable, very fast, and rock-solid all along. I've been using PostgreSQL in other projects for over a decade and it's had all 3 along the way, although speed has constantly improved.
I'm all for cheerleading for PostgreSQL (I really love the tool), but that "a few years ago" comment is just wrong and not really very fair.
I'm all for cheerleading for PostgreSQL (I really love the tool), but that "a few years ago" comment is just wrong and not really very fair.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Oracle issue is involved: they are after all also not bundling Java (which is required on first boot (rumor?) but by lots of software in any case). I can imagine they don't want to mess with possible lawsuits or licensing fees in the future with the path Oracle is on.
I installed Lion a few days ago, and Java is not installed. The first time I typed java (or javac) on the command line, it asked if I wanted it installed - it was then automatic, I just had to wait a few mintes.
Wherever possible, Apple selects BSD-style over GPL (see e.g. wget vs curl, gcc vs clang)
Worse, MySQL seems to go for a strict interpretation of the GPL (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html):
"For OEMs, ISVs, and VARs who distribute MySQL with their products, and do not license and distribute their source code under the GPL, MySQL provides a flexible OEM Commercial License."
Compare that with http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence:
"PostgreSQL is released under the PostgreSQL License, a liberal Open Source license, similar to the BSD or MIT licenses."
Worse, MySQL seems to go for a strict interpretation of the GPL (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html):
"For OEMs, ISVs, and VARs who distribute MySQL with their products, and do not license and distribute their source code under the GPL, MySQL provides a flexible OEM Commercial License."
Compare that with http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence:
"PostgreSQL is released under the PostgreSQL License, a liberal Open Source license, similar to the BSD or MIT licenses."
Given as that's pretty much the only way they can make money, it's obvious they would choose that interpretation (which would be hard to defend in court, BTW).
Why would that bit of the license be a problem? (real question, no snark involved)
Apple's version of MySQL on Snow Leopard was GPL and distributed on Apple's own website : http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1068/
Postgres' source on Lion is now available at : http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-107/
Apple's version of MySQL on Snow Leopard was GPL and distributed on Apple's own website : http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1068/
Postgres' source on Lion is now available at : http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-107/
An interpretation of that clause would be that Apple either has to release Mac OS X under the GPL, or get that commercial license (I haven't checked, but it probably isn't free).
I do not think the GPL license implies that, and as another poster said, that interpretation would probably not hold in court, but why take the risk?
Also, shipping this in the past does not imply they were happy doing that. They might have found the alternatives not good enough before, just like they did with gcc/clang (I am not sure gcc is completely out yet, but it certainly is on the way out)
I do not think the GPL license implies that, and as another poster said, that interpretation would probably not hold in court, but why take the risk?
Also, shipping this in the past does not imply they were happy doing that. They might have found the alternatives not good enough before, just like they did with gcc/clang (I am not sure gcc is completely out yet, but it certainly is on the way out)
They would obviously not have to release OS X under the GPL, but they could be forced to release the applications using the client libraries. On the other hand, this has been true for years; this policy was created by MySQL AB, even before Sun bought them.
Perhaps Apple is interested in publishing some software linked against the client libraries.
The MySQL client libraries are GPL, which is very restrictive for a client library. I think that even the commercial vendors' licenses for client libraries are less restrictive.
The MySQL client libraries are GPL, which is very restrictive for a client library. I think that even the commercial vendors' licenses for client libraries are less restrictive.
Congrats to the Postgres guys. Even if this is for primarily licensing reasons, pgsql is a solid, powerful database that's easily more powerful than MySQL, and is slowly making gains against Oracle. It's underused, and lacking in name recognition, but hopefully this is the first step towards changing that.
Agreed. We're a Postgres shop at work, and the few times I've had to bust out MySQL for a side gig because of client requirements I lament the lack of functions and transactional DDL. It feels like a toy.
It will be interesting how a discussion (if there is one) on Hacker News will differ from Reddit. There the forty comments did fall in two categories:
1. There is a Server Version?
2. It is spelled OS X without a slash.
1. There is a Server Version?
2. It is spelled OS X without a slash.
Agreed. While reddit's great for many conversations that never occur on HN, tech discussions are definitely not their forte.
I wouldn't go that far. I've had some great tech discussions on reddit. Things seem to devolve like this whenever the discussion starts to close in on a topic that any idiot can comment on. There are many of them there, and they do.
Having upgraded to Lion Server on one of my boxes, I found that Postgres was indeed running. Or at least trying to run. It seems that the permissions weren't set properly on the conf file or data directories, so my log was filling up with "failure to start" messages as it tried to launch Postgres every 10 seconds. Even a "repair permissions" failed to solve the problem, and I had to manually go in and change some ownerships from the root user to _postgres.
Not sure if this is just my issue, but if you did upgrade to Server, you might want to check your system's log file.
Not sure if this is just my issue, but if you did upgrade to Server, you might want to check your system's log file.
I take this as great news. Postgres is my preferred SQL database. I wish I could articulate better why I don't like MySQL as much, but it just feels 'strange' in comparison.
As a nice perk, all of the core client binaries [0] (and pg_upgrade [1]) are already present without having Mac OS X Server installed.
That includes: clusterdb, createdb, createlang, createuser, dropdb, droplang, dropuser, ecpg, pg_config, pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_restore, pg_upgrade, psql, reindexdb, and vacuumdb.
Unfortunately, it doesn't include any of the server binaries: initdb, pg_controldata, pg_ctl, pg_resetxlog, postgres, or postmaster.
For the curious, I've pasted the output of pg_config at http://www.pastie.org/2275197
[0]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/reference-client.h...
[1]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/pgupgrade.html
That includes: clusterdb, createdb, createlang, createuser, dropdb, droplang, dropuser, ecpg, pg_config, pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_restore, pg_upgrade, psql, reindexdb, and vacuumdb.
Unfortunately, it doesn't include any of the server binaries: initdb, pg_controldata, pg_ctl, pg_resetxlog, postgres, or postmaster.
For the curious, I've pasted the output of pg_config at http://www.pastie.org/2275197
[0]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/reference-client.h...
[1]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/pgupgrade.html
I was under the impression that Apple was discontinuing their XServe product line after Jan 31st 2011. If this is the case, what hardware are people running OS X Server on?
http://www.macworld.com/article/155483/2010/11/xserve_discon...
Apple sells versions of the Mac mini and Mac Pro as servers.
They're also selling Lion Server as an add-on in the Mac App Store for other systems.
They're also selling Lion Server as an add-on in the Mac App Store for other systems.
does this mean we'll get a better osx gui for interacting with postgres? all i could find is navicat and it kind of suck.
Lion Server is all about the command line.
pgAdmin? http://www.pgadmin.org/
Egh, pgAdmin doesn't feel native at all. I wish there were a Sequel Pro (http://www.sequelpro.com/) for postgres, with a proper Cocoa UI. Once you use Sequel Pro going back to anything less friendly is a real grind.
Anyone any idea what version they're using?
9.0.4 apparently (found it elsewhere).
RTFA.
I did, it's not stated. If I've missed it can you quote it please but I've looked at both the article and the linked article.
Still, whatever the reason for the switch (is Oracle involved?), this seems like a good new default.
I've found Postgres capable, fast, and rock-solid. (At the point I switched from MySQL, a few years ago, I'd be tempted to say that it had approximately none of those three going for it. I'll be happy to hear that MySQL has improved meanwhile, though: is there any particular reason I might consider switching back?).