grumpydba

> I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in a sensitive manner.

These laws are ruthless and insensitive towards women though...

Indeed you are not aware as you have not been there. It's in a border of an old forest. It's known that it kills bird. The visual pollution is really important and those who value technology and convenience over beauty have already done disastrous things to my country. It needs to stop.

Indeed and I do not think Anglo Saxon protestants make correct beholders in this regard. Totally subjective I admit. However I stand for my views on aestetics. I think it's an important matter and that it is open for discussion.

Also, I have a deep aversion for relativism.

Yeah so let's destroy pristine nature landscapes with ugly turbines (which kill a lot of birds and cost an arm to decommission). I've seen wild landscapes in Brittany completely ruined by still wind turbines. It's a disgrace.

I'd rather go nuclear in select ugly places.

What is beautiful is good. He who creates ugliness is evil.

Probably the ugliness. I've seen great landscapes being heavily damaged by wind turbines.

Good reading. It reminds me of the wave of big banks implementing 'Lean management', supposedly listening to the employees in a bottom to top fashion, while announcing a 5% cut in the IT workforce.

We got the whole package, daily stand-up meetings, problem management sessions, whiteboards, you name it. The whiteboards where maintained for 2 years. The 5% workforce cut was compensated later on.

But more importantly, It managers could brag about implementing lean management at cocktails, and laugh at the old cranks who had not yet done it.

Now those mid-level managers are implementing 'the cloud', mostly by using shitty tools provided by the service provider they are in bed with, be it IBM, MS or HP. Milions are being spent.

It leaves me wondering if everybody is within the bounds of the law during those transformations.

Major terror attacks in France have killed much more. Also, volontary deaths and accidents should not be compared. It is outrageous to do so.

Most of the "problems" also exist in enteprise scale database server such as sql server and sybase.

If parent meant that sql server and sybase are no more than nosql data store, I beg to differ.

Those issues have been "fixable" in innodb for years using flags. This is getting old. I think people come in here to have accurate information.

Sorry but it seems necessary, PC principal.

> Parent comment points out that MySQL has quirks that helps you shoot yourself in the foot moreso than other engines.

It used to be true. Not so much anymore. Study the defaults on mysql 8.

It all depends on the ANSI_WARNINGS switch. Some clients set it, some don't. Thus you have to be explicit or you might have a NoSQL database.

You should also read about arithabort and arithignore.

As I told you, you need to study the database engine you are using. For Mssql too. So you assumed it's always on. The type of mystake some non diligent devs do with MySQL. Gives it an undeserved bad rep. A dba can help you and teach you the nuances. Ask them at your company.

There have been a considerable amount of efforts made to improve innodb. It's plenty fast and properly used, it's well behaved. Just like Mssql.

> it shouldn’t be treated as anything more than a nosql document store with mature replication.

This is the outrageous statement I was replying too. I get it, postgresql is your thing (I'm a postgresql dba BTW). However you are being excessive and unfair.

You are just repeating a meme without having administered databases professionally. You need to study your database of choice. Postgresql or Mysql. Are you aware of postgresql's fsync bug ? Is postgresql more than a nosql database because of that ?

> My issue is with silent data corruption and subtle issues that break expectations

SQL server and sybase do truncate data too. Silently. Are they nothing more than nosql databases because of that ?

> MSSQL does not munge data if the column is not equipped for it, I have no idea about sybase. You can test this easily by making an int column and putting a maxint+1 in.. it will tell you "NO" and not insert anything.

It does truncate strings.so does MySQL. But you need to enable strict mode. Easy.

Mssql does allow ddl in transactions, but do not do it, you will have huge locking issues. It will also not work in snapshot isolation.

My point stands: all major enterprise dbms have limitations. And you are dismissing MySQL, but by your standards Mssql and sybase would also be dismissed.

This is unfair.

You just need a semi competent dev to know those limitations. And MySQL with innodb is not that far from sql server or sybase.

> or munges data if the column isn’t the right size

Same behaviour as Ms sql server or sybase. Would you be so harsh with them?

> it cannot handle schema changes in a transaction.

Same behaviour for some cases on sql server and sybase. Also in MySQL 8 some schema changes are indeed atomic. You are being unfair as those limitations are perfectly fine to live with.

> it fails a commit but overwrites data anyway.

Please provide more information

> Yes. It is, and the parent is saying why (despite the fact it had more features) it shouldn’t be treated as anything more than a nosql document store with mature replication.

This is very unfair to innodb which is a mature enterprise level relational engine.

You could implement ext4 on the nt kernel and have wsl1 run on it

Use a gui if you don't know your way around the shell. I'm pretty sure Debian provides one.

> Yes, the Go compiler team is now working on working on fixing this issue, but defer is not a new language construct and they should have started fixing that long ago, considered how often it's being used. What's worse, they still didn't make it a stated goal to eliminate the overhead of using defer completely, but only talk about reducing overhead in common cases.

They constantly improve defer's performance. If it's all you have against go, then I guess it's good enough for you.

It is different from the original proposal and takes user feedback into account. At the end of the day one has to make the call.

I think I can live with it.

> Trading environment, there wasn't another solution with the lookup-and-matching performance they got out of Oracle, from what little was shared with me.

I've been maintaining trading backend databases for roughly a decade. What oracle does, db2, sql server, sybase can do. And postgresql, MySQL most probably too.

Most of the times the Oracle choice is dictated by a software editor whose devs are more familiar with Oracle and have an oracle first strategy.

> For some highly-specific performance scenarios, Oracle still cannot be beat.

Can you elaborate on this please? I do not think this statement is correct.

> Who SAP? They are not quite as bad as Oracle but in the same league.

Of course not SAP. However I know that the 3 biggest French banks use postgresql more and more. I know it's a data point but I think it's telling. Also, Microsoft sql server is still growing.

Too bad all this work is proprietary.

On Linux you don't need to install it it is there by default on all major distros.

> It's interesting to me that this is happening in the same month that Microsoft made installing modern Python as easy as typing Python and then clicking "install".

You still need admin rights and an internet setup. Linux is still king.

> The one and only thing that you cannot do is offer a commercial version of CockroachDB as a service without buying a license.

This is dishonest and deceptive. One other thing you cannot do is use their code and incorporate it in your open source project.

They used to provide an open source parser for postgres' sql syntax. Now it is closed source for 3 years.

I don't mind the license change. Lying however is not a good way to behave with customers or open source communities.

You can pool n if it's on your hot path, can't you?

Escape analysis was just rewritten, and the objective is to handle this case more gracefully.

Object pools are really easy. Unsafe is only for extreme cases. Some cache libraries use it. You don't have to code it yourself. Yes this is better than relying on the end user/admin to tune things. It is more predictable.

> golang only comes with a low latency GC, which basically means you cannot use golang if you're looking for high throughput.

I you're looking for high throughput you just need to allocate less. Or use unsafe. And it's totally doable.

I don't think it is efficient to implement a dozen of ways to handle generics.

People who need generics will use code generation until the issue is addressed, I don't really see the need to rush.

Attention to details is something I like about go.