I’ve been a Postgres DBA since 2005. After all that time, I’ve come to a conclusion that I’m embarrassed I didn’t reach much earlier: Postgres is awful. This isn’t a “straw that broke the camel’s back” kind of situation; there is a litany of ridiculous idiocy in the project that’s, frankly, more than enough to stave off any DBA, end user, or developer. But I’ll limit my list to five, because clickbait.

Every good database engine has a system catalog that describes the myriad of structures that model and preserve our data. Of course this is expected, as it would be somewhat silly for a database system not to use tables to represent its internal mechanisms. But that doesn’t mean they have to be humanly readable, or even make sense without a series of views or esoteric functions to decipher them. The information_schema standard serves a necessary role in that regard, and the Postgres implementation is extremely comprehensive.

This Super Tuesday, it became readily apparent that Bernie Sanders and his unprecedented run were finally done for. So now that we’ve finally dispensed with the one candidate that genuinely cared, who remains? Donald Biff Tannen Trump, Ted Insane Zealot Cruz, and Hillary Nixon Clinton. Well, if those are my choices, then I may just vote Trump to finally burn the whole thing down, because we clearly deserve it. But wait, Hillary isn’t a narcissistic populist or a religious fanatic, so why do I hate her?

A few days ago, a developer came to me with that inevitable scenario that every DBA secretly dreads: a need for a dynamic table structure. After I’d finished dying inside, I explained the various architectures that could give him what he needed, and then I excused myself to another room so I could weep silently without disturbing my coworkers. But was it really that bad? Databases have come a long way since the Bad Old Days when there were really only two viable approaches to table polymorphism.

In a heterogeneous database environment, it’s not uncommon for object creation and modification to occur haphazardly. Unless permissions are locked down to prevent it, users and applications will create tables, modify views, or otherwise invoke DDL without the DBA’s knowledge. Or perhaps permissions are exceptionally draconian, yet they’ve been circumvented or a superuser account has gone rogue. Maybe we just need to audit database modifications to fulfill oversight obligations. Whatever the reason, Postgres has it covered with event triggers.