Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, "Advocacy (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit
Date: 2003-08-28 23:21:55
Message-ID: 20030828232155.GA1432@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-08-29 00:50:40 Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit
Previous Message Sean Chittenden 2003-08-28 20:48:41 Cup 'o PostgreSQL in the news...

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-08-29 00:16:37 Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-08-28 23:04:19 Re: New array functions