On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 22:46:58 -0700,
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> That's an interesting observation, because I've long thought PeopleSoft
> ought to support Postgres too. From what I recall, their database schema
> is *very* database neutral (at least as of PSFT version 7.x) and fairly
> simple (we ran it on MSSQL 6.5). It would probably be pretty easily
> ported to run on Postgres.
In my opinion it is too database agnostic. They pretty much just use the
DB as a file. From what I have seen of the system it is one big hack.
Their trusted client security model is ridiculous. Fortunately in
version 8 you don't have to let people run 2 tier accept for developer
types. (Anyone with 2 tier access owns the system.) I really don't
even trust 3 tier access, because I believe that a fair amount of
security is enforced by the client rather than the app server.
It was annoying that the set of characters usable for passwords in 7.6
(and presumably still apply to the connect ID in 8) was restricted
because they didn't want to quote the password string so that you could
have special characters in it.
They aren't big on using referential integrity to keep the data clean.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2003-08-29 00:16:37|
|Subject: Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-28 23:04:19|
|Subject: Re: New array functions |
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2003-08-29 00:50:40|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit|
|Previous:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2003-08-28 20:48:41|
|Subject: Cup 'o PostgreSQL in the news...|