About:
PostgreSQL is a robust relational database system with more than 20 years of active development that runs on all major operating systems. It is fully ACID compliant, and has full support for foreign keys, joins, views, triggers, and stored procedures (in multiple languages). It includes most SQL92 and SQL99 data types, including INTEGER, NUMERIC, BOOLEAN, CHAR, VARCHAR, DATE, INTERVAL, and TIMESTAMP. It also supports storage of binary large objects, including pictures, sounds, or video. It has native programming interfaces for C/C++, Java, .Net, Perl, Python, Ruby, Tcl, and ODBC, among others, and exceptional documentation.

Release focus: Minor bugfixes

Changes:
pg_get_ruledef() now parenthesizes negative constants. ALTER AGGREGATE ... OWNER TO was made to update pg_shdepend.

Author:
Scrappy [contact developer]

Rating:	reset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8.91/10.00 (129 votes)

Homepage:
http://www.postgresql.org/
Tar/GZ:
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v8.3.3/
Tar/BZ2:
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v8.3.3/
Changelog:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release-8-3-3.html
RPM package:
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.3.3/linux/
BSD Ports URL:
http://www.freshports.org/search.php?query=postgresql83-
CVS tree (cvsweb):
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/
Mailing list archive:
http://archives.postgresql.org/

Trove categories: [change]

[Development Status]		5 - Production/Stable
[Environment]		Console (Text Based), No Input/Output (Daemon)
[Intended Audience]		Developers, End Users/Desktop, System Administrators
[License]		OSI Approved :: BSD License (original), OSI Approved :: BSD License (revised)
[Programming Language]		SQL
[Topic]		Database :: Database Engines/Servers

Dependencies: [change]
No dependencies filed

 Branches

Branch	Version	Last release	License	URLs
Stable	8.3.3	16-Jun-2008	BSD License (revised)
Development	8.0.0rc1	13-Dec-2004	BSD License (revised)

 Releases

Version	Focus	Date
8.3.3	Minor bugfixes	16-Jun-2008 04:06
8.2.4	Major security fixes	30-Apr-2007 14:30
8.1.4	Major security fixes	29-Jun-2006 20:18
8.1.1	Major feature enhancements	06-Jan-2006 18:59
8.0.2	Major bugfixes	13-Apr-2005 03:06
8.0.0	Major feature enhancements	19-Jan-2005 10:02
7.4	Major feature enhancements	18-Nov-2003 18:59
7.3.4	Minor bugfixes	20-Aug-2003 17:55
7.3.3	Minor bugfixes	23-Jun-2003 03:30
7.3.2	Minor bugfixes	10-Feb-2003 21:40

 Articles referencing this project

SuSE: New postgresql packages fix remote code execution by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, Feb 10th 2008 14:28 Red Hat: Updated postgresql packages fix several security issues by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, Feb 10th 2008 14:21 Debian: New postgresql-7.4 packages fix several vulnerabilities by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, Jan 20th 2008 08:57 Debian: New postgresql-8.1 packages fix several vulnerabilities by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, Jan 20th 2008 08:44 Red Hat: Updated postgresql packages fix several security issues by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, Jan 13th 2008 01:04

Debian: New PostgreSQL 8.1 packages fix privilege escalation by Patrick Lenz , in Security Mon, Jun 18th 2007 05:46 Red Hat: Updated postgresql packages fix several security issues by Patrick Lenz , in Security Sun, May 13th 2007 11:39 Red Hat: Updated postgresql packages that fix several security by Patrick Lenz , in Security Tue, May 8th 2007 01:51 Red Hat: Updated postgresql packages fix several security issues by Patrick Lenz , in Security Wed, Mar 21st 2007 03:04 [more articles]

 Comments

[»] "Object" Relational?
by The Saluki - Jul 18th 2003 04:54:41

Why do they call it "Object" relational? Where is the "object" part?

--
Thanks, The Saluki

[reply] [top]

[»] Postgresql vs SapDB (aka gpl ADABAS D)
by mariuz - Feb 8th 2003 15:31:25

Anyone have a chart with the two ?
Have friend and He wants Oracle but after a talk i have told it
about Postgresql and the sister Firebird but he told me about
SAPdb how close (cloned) it is to oracle (He uses sap the application now ...) .Well i have watched some slashdot threads
and surprise i have found some links about unhappy people
but are removed from yahoo :( (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sapdb-general/message/ the 909 message )
By the way love the replication stuff of the postgresql . I will
try to do something like that for firebird :) (gpl-ed)
And i don't know anything about Postgresql Clustering ...yet

--
www.firebirdsql.org

[reply] [top]

[»] PostgreSQL is a forkbomb...
by Gergely "PhOeMiX" Czuczy - Jun 18th 2002 17:48:37

Try this: create a table, with an AFTER INSERT trigger on it. In the trigger procedure make a query into the database. Now, set postgres into debug level 2 or 3. every time your function runs, it connnects to the database. Postgres handles each connection in a separate process, so a new process is fork()-ed. now insert about 5000 rows into that table. notice the speed.
now install some forkbomb protection into your system(eg grsecurity), and for the test set the limit into a minimal value, 20 forks/second etc. Now insert 5000 rows again. notice the speed. It's a real forkbomb, yes.

Any comments?

--
Gergely "PhOeMiX" Czuczy mailto: phoemix@harmless.hu web: http://phoemix.harmless.hu/

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: PostgreSQL is a forkbomb...
by Neil Conway - Oct 30th 2002 22:06:11

This is incorrect, for several reasons. First, this specific example is not a fork bomb example -- if all a stored procedure does execute a query, another connection to the database is not made, and thus another process is not forked. While I suppose you could write a function using C that used libpq to open another DB connection, it would be pointless.

Second (and more importantly), trying to make a database secure if you allow users to execute arbitrary SQL is pointless (for example: disable the GEQO, execute a 20 table join query from 10 concurrent clients, and watch PostgreSQL eat up gigabytes of RAM and many minutes of CPU time). You simply cannot allow untrusted users to execute arbitrary SQL. It's even more dangerous to allow them to define functions; functions defined in C can trivially crash the backend. You might be able to get a modicum of security by using rlimit-style restrictions on the resources that PostgreSQL can use, but that's not a complete solution.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] project description
by PanSerg - May 4th 2002 19:41:57

I think it would make more sense to explain the difference between PostgreSQL and other databases, like MySQL and Oracle, than between current PostgreSQL and its archaic versions.
Or give the short list of unique features at least: tell about ACID, MVCC, WAL, what makes it work as a high-end database server as well as a backend of web-application servers.

[reply] [top]

[»] User supporting and Documentation
by Gergely "PhOeMiX" Czuczy - Feb 14th 2002 01:39:04

I've been using PostgreSQL for over 6 month, and I've found it great according to it's knownladge. But every time when I want to do some non-basic things(findig information on built-in functions etc) I have to search 1) the included documentation 2) the web site 3) google.com for information about the topic, but in most cases I am unable to find enough informations, documantation or anything.

PostgreSQL is really great(but sometimes a little slow...), but it would need a better documentation. For example a complette reference for the built-in functions, aggregate functions and for the PgPL/SQL language

The developers also would have to concentrate on the speed of the DBMS, thus storec procedures written in PgPL/SQL are very slow. They are really.

Looking forward for your reply,

--
Gergely "PhOeMiX" Czuczy mailto: phoemix@harmless.hu web: http://phoemix.harmless.hu/

[reply] [top]

[»] PostgreSQL is a very solid DB
by Gianni Mariani - Nov 8th 2001 01:26:27

I have found PostgreSQL to be a fast and reliable DB. It has alot of features and I'm continued to be amazed at how well it performs on some vey complex queries.

Go team !

[reply] [top]

[»] testing against SAP DB
by A.Barros - Aug 22nd 2001 09:54:42

ne1 has already ran a performance test of
PostgreSQL against SAP DB ( recently GPL'ed ) ?

maybe i'll do it... really need a "state-of-art" transaction-safe GPL DBMS.

( www.sapdb.org )

[reply] [top]

[»] Performance issues
by Joseph Engo - May 21st 2000 06:52:25

I was playing around with 7.0 on my laptop the other day (P-90, w/ 40 megs RAM and rh6.0) and I was not very impressed with the speed factor of it. I have been using MySQL for close to a year now, I need something less restrictive. ( as far as the license )

Postgre has many features that the dbs don't have, for example, sub querys. But, MySQL is much much quicker. I plan on doing some testing on a AMD-500 dedicated server soon, I am hoping that the performance with PHP will be better.

Besides that, I think its a great db, but, needs more work. For general toying around and small to medium sites. Postgre is great. But, for big high trafic sites. I would not recommend it.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Performance issues
by Robert Hurst - Apr 1st 2001 21:57:52

We have been using PostgreSQL 7.0.3 on a quad XEON server with 1gb RAM for about 5-months now. While the ODBC/SQL is excellent as far as setup and compatibility, the performance is not. I would still recommend it for any serious database application that cannot afford commercial licensing.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Performance issues
by Robert Hurst - Jul 26th 2001 16:24:58

We are now using PostgreSQL 7.1.2 on a dual PIII/1gHz server with 1gb RAM for the past month. The performance is much improved (both reads and writes) over 7.0.x. Coupled with pgAdmin, this database has some serious capabilities.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] PGSQL 7.0
by Tim Triche, Jr. - Apr 11th 2000 03:32:07

The big change is the addition of foreign keys and the increase in performance vs. the 6.x series. Around 6.5 the database server stopped leaking memory and trudging through queries hideously slowly. In the 7.x series it is poised to achieve feature parity with Oracle as far as SQL DDL and DML is concerned; the multiversion concurrency model from Oracle was adapted for use in Postgresql's internals around 6.5 as well, with decidedly positive results. 7.1 is slated to have outer joins, at which point it might be reasonable to start porting lower-traffic or smaller sites from Oracle to Postgresql in some cases. Certainly it will make life easier for developers who do not want to grapple with Oracle or MySQL's shortcomings simply to use a good SQL92 back-end.

PGSQL is a high quality opensource RDBMS which is quickly closing in on MySQL's application support, and blows that RDBMS out of the water as far as robustness is concerned. I was slated to replace a MySQL backend with Oracle on Linux this evening -- while MySQL is very fast, it has not proven to be robust enough for an active multimedia website's framework. We don't use Postgresql in-house at my day job, but I have consulted with other companies that were very pleased with it for their backend. In any event, the swap-out was rescheduled for tomorrow night, so I am tweaking Postgresql 7.0beta5 for my own website instead.

Postgresql is really the only opensource database with an active enough developer base and a rich enough set of features to touch high-end commercial RDBMS offerings. The big changes for the 7.x series of releases are almost all related to narrowing the remaining gap, and offering a Free alternative to Oracle and its ilk (Sybase, DB2, Informix).

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: PGSQL 7.0
by Owen Lloyd - Feb 6th 2002 07:06:26


>I was slated
> to replace a MySQL backend with Oracle
> on Linux this evening
>
LOL - well all I can say there is "may the force be with you" I've been fighting with Oracle (9i)'s installer for a week now - it took me an hour just to get the installer to run, you have to go and do half the changes yourself - (these guys never heard of an install script??). At least I didn't have to go and fetch/try the entire contents of Blackdown's ftp server this time just to find a JRE it would run on - there's progress. And then the installer just fails with no given reason/error at multiple stages throughout the install. This shoddiness amazes me! When you consider that big projects like Apache, MySQL, PHP and the like have installed without a hitch on every Linux based OS I have thown them at (some old, some new, various distro's), it is incredible that an organisation such as Oracle can't get their installation processes sorted. The amount of fixing I've had to do just to get the installer to run does not bode well for the reliability of the products it installs!

I'd decided to try this and give Oracle a another chance after the disaster-on-a-CD that was OAS but it looks like their products are just as over complicated and half baked as ever. If it won't play ball in a few more days, I'll have to cross that off the list of things we might use in future projects.

Grr - I'll be alright after I take my pills.. :)

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Postgres Version 7.0?
by Sven Anders - Mar 27th 2000 14:34:58

Hi! What's new in version 7.0xx. Can't find anything on their home-page!... Thx.

[reply] [top]

[»] Followup on Aldem's comments
by Tom Lane - Mar 9th 2000 12:44:32

Just wanted to point out that Aldem's comments are dated mid-1998, so they must be based on Postgres 6.3.2 or even older. We've come a long way since then. If you rejected Postgres a couple years ago, you might like to kick the tires again...

[reply] [top]

[»] PostgreSQL is excellent!
by Boogie - Jul 14th 1999 14:57:01

I've been using PostgreSQL (PgSQL) for over a year now and am highly pleased with its functionality. I have worked with other databases but appreciate the object relational nature of PgSQL. Another reason that I use PgSQL is the license, it is much less restrictive than the licenses of other (O)RDBMSs. If you're concerned about licensing, this is the database to use! Yet another quality of PgSQL is the developers continued focus on SQL92 compliance. While SQL92 compliance is not complete as of this writing, it is nearing completion at every release. I would recommend PgSQL to anyone looking for a great all purpose ORDBMS!

[reply] [top]

[»] PostGreSql may not be as "free" as you think !
by linux - May 17th 2001 21:53:32

To all who may concern: I am afraid to tell you that the POSTGRESQL is not as FREE as you think. The FTP server for postgreesql (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org) no longer permits non-member to log-on. I am sadden by this turn of event.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: PostGreSql may not be as "free" as you think !
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - May 18th 2001 00:04:00


>
>
>
> To all who may concern:
>
> I am afraid to tell you that the
> POSTGRESQL is not as FREE as you
> think.
>
> The FTP server for postgreesql
> (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org) no longer
> permits non-member to log-on.
>
> I am sadden by this turn of event.
http://www.postgresql.org/ftpsite/latest/

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Great RDBMS
by Rev. Adam Tauno Williams - Jun 27th 1999 14:38:55

I strongly disagree with the comment recommending MySQL. It does not support transaction and is thus not appropriate for any real database work. Does crashme do a start/commit work? If not I'm not suprised it killed PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is very close to SQL92 compliance, is fast, and reliable. Highly recommended.

[reply] [top]