Long have CASE statements been a double-edged sword in the database world. They’re functional, diverse, adaptive, and simple. Unfortunately they’re also somewhat bulky, and when it comes to using them to categorize aggregates, something of a hack. This is why I wanted to cry with joy when I found out that PostgreSQL 9.4 introduced a feature I’ve always wanted, but found difficult to express as a need. I mean, CASE statements are fine, right?
As many seasoned DBAs might know, there’s one area that PostgreSQL still manages to be highly aggravating. By this, I mean the role views have in mucking up PostgreSQL dependencies. The part that annoys me personally, is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Take, for example, what happens if you try to modify a VARCHAR column so that the column length is higher. We’re not changing the type, or dropping the column, or anything overly complicated.
Recently I stumbled across a question on Reddit regarding the performance impact of using pgBadger on an active database server. The only real answer to this question is: do not use pgBadger. Before anyone asks—no, you shouldn’t use pgFouine either. This is not an indictment on the quality of either project, but a statement of their obsolescence in the face of recent PostgreSQL features.
One of the recommended postgresql.conf changes for both of these tools is to set log_min_duration_statement to 0.
Well, my publisher recently informed me that the book I’ve long been slaving over for almost a year, is finally finished. I must admit that PostgreSQL 9 High Availability Cookbook is somewhat awkward as a title, but that doesn’t detract from the contents. I’d like to discuss primarily why I wrote it.
When Packt first approached me in October of 2013, I was skeptical. I have to admit that I’m not a huge fan of the “cookbook” style they’ve been pushing lately.
Programming is fun. I love programming! Ever since I changed my career from programming to database work, I’ve still occasionally dabbled in my former craft. As such, I believe I can say this with a fair amount of accuracy: programmers don’t understand databases. This isn’t something small, either; there’s a fundamental misunderstanding at play. Unless the coder happens to work primarily with graphics, bulk set-based transformations are not something they’ll generally work with.
