News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ghost 1.0 by seanwilson on Thursday July 27, 2017 @11:17AM (#14866079)
What kinds of problems did it have? Why is it so difficult to support MySQL and Postgres at the same time, and why would MySQL be prioritised?
Re:Ghost 1.0 by erisds on Thursday July 27, 2017 @12:07PM (#14866586)
I answered this question in as much detail as possible in the blog post I wrote at the time (which was also linked in the above comment) https://dev.ghost.org/dropping-support-for-postgresql/
Re:Ghost 1.0 by zimpenfish on Thursday July 27, 2017 @11:39AM (#14866283)
> why would MySQL be prioritised?

"Because it's easier to slap a system together on MySQL". Which, to be fair, it is but that's not a good thing when you're talking about data.

Re:Ghost 1.0 by e12e on Thursday July 27, 2017 @10:17PM (#14871413)
Probably not that - but Ghost was born in many ways as "a better wordpress" (or a not batshit crazy mess of old code and not properly namespaced plugins and themes).

The model it replaces/improves on is self-host on shared-hosting web hosts. That used to be php and mysql - I guess they kept mysql, even if nodejs doesn't lend itself to the same type of shared hosting as php does (in fact, neither does php, but that's a battle for another day).

Anyway, many hosting services will throw in a database instance on a more-or-less well-managed mysql cluster - at a minimum there might be some semi-regular backups of the database, with some automation for doing restores (and with more than a bit of luck, they'll keep snapshots, so that the sql injection that wiped your database haven't resulted in all-empty backups by the time you realize).

I don't think it makes much sense, but I doubt it is because "postgres is hard, mysql is easy".

Re:Ghost 1.0 by seanwilson on Thursday July 27, 2017 @08:11PM (#14870927)
Why is it easier though?
Re:Ghost 1.0 by zimpenfish on Friday July 28, 2017 @06:11AM (#14873177)
Because it was a lot easier to deal with permissions, you could write "SQL" rather than SQL, it was very lax with SQL keywords as table names (ie. you could create a table called 'user'), replication didn't involve selling your soul to several devils, etc.

It's like Rails - it's easy to slap something up but once you start using it in anger, it requires all the handholding and effort.