Re: postgresql with SuSE 8.0

Art,

> I don't understand why it has to be so difficult to setup a postgresql
> database.

Frankly, most of us didn't find it difficult, even the first time. For that
matter, RH 8.0's RPMs take care of a lot of this initial configuration stuff
for you; I'm not sure why SuSE's don't.

I thought Oracle was bad, but postgresql is worse. (Oracle is
> also pretty bad in install and setup in Windows in addition to being
> more bloatware than SQLServer.) A few years ago, I installed setup a MS
> SQLServer7 and transfered data from Access into it in an hour. I am no
> database expert, but have worked with various databases.

Tell me that again, after you set up MS SQL *this* year. I've set up
multiple MSSQL servers and PostgreSQL servers; Postgres is in my opinion much
easier, particularly if your MSSQL requires any special authentication, which
can take *hours* to troubleshoot on Win2k/Nt. Let alone the number of
on-install options for MSSQL (like sort order) that require you to *re-format
the partition* and start over if you pick the wrong option. Or for fun, why
don't you try changing the host name of an MSSQL server? I double-dog dare
ya.

> The
> documentation leaves a lot to be desired. There needs to be a basic
> setup and install procedure that non-database experts can understand and
> follow without researching everything.

Tell you what, Art: You pay my company the cost of one MS SQL Server
Enterprise license ($9995, last I checked). I will hire a good technical
writer and create comprehensive documentation on every single variation of
installing PostgreSQL and troubleshooting all common problems reported on the
lists, and post it on www.PostgreSQL.org. Deal?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco