Re: postgresql with SuSE 8.0

At 14:25 27.01.2003 -0800, Art Fore wrote:
>Well, I am no fan of MS SQL, but as I mentioned, it was pretty easy to
>install a few years ago, about 4 I think. Maybe Red Hat does makes it
>easier, but SuSE sure did not. Normaly Suse does pretty good with these
>type programs. Also, my database needs are pretty simple, parts
>database, things like that.
>
>A type of flow-chart where the myriad of config files belong and a basid
>description would really help, but I have never seen that. MySQL was
>easier to install and configure, but it does not have stored views as
>Postgresql.

Well, I haven't used 8.0, but I just installed SuSE 8.1.
Basically, I did the following:
- Install at least packages postgresql, postgresql-libs and postgresql-server
- Use the yast2 /etc/sysconfig editor to set your data dir and any postmaster
opts ( like -i ). You can find them under Base-Applications/Postgres.
- Use the Yast2 Runlevel editor to specify at which runlevels the postmaster
should be started ( typically just 5 )
You can start the the server right from that form.
- Add yourself a user account with "createuser -U postgres -d -A <username>"
and a database "createdb mydb"
That took about 5 minutes.

>Art
>
>On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 12:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)