Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit
(moving to advocacy) Christopher Browne wrote: > - The main Tuxedo reseller that I am aware of is PeopleSoft, who use > it for their "high traffic" clients. Anyone that has seen news lately > knows that they and Oracle aren't exactly "best pals" these days; > having another DB option could be helpful to them... 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. I wonder how we could get them to consider it... Joe
Joe Conway wrote: > (moving to advocacy) > > Christopher Browne wrote: > >> - The main Tuxedo reseller that I am aware of is PeopleSoft, who use >> it for their "high traffic" clients. Anyone that has seen news lately >> knows that they and Oracle aren't exactly "best pals" these days; >> having another DB option could be helpful to them... > > > 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. > > I wonder how we could get them to consider it... Not a bad suggestion. Just went to their site and submitted an quick brief of benefits/etc via their "Partner Proposal" page: http://checkers.peoplesoft.com/allconn/ppp.nsf/PPP?OpenForm&Seq=2#_RefreshKW_type I'm hoping they are read by People With A Clue, and that they in turn will pass it on to the right group internally. Worth a shot I guess. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > Joe
After a long battle with technology,justin@postgresql.org (Justin Clift), an earthling, wrote: > Worth a shot I guess. > > :-) I'd think that they would take the idea more seriously if PostgreSQL supported XA and thereby was compatible with Tuxedo. But it probably doesn't hurt for them to hear the idea multiple times... -- let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/finances.html Whatever you do don't mail me at pink-and-wobbly@asdkjlwelkj.com, because then I'll know you're just an address-harvester, and blacklist your IP until the end of time
After a long battle with technology,mail@joeconway.com (Joe Conway), an earthling, wrote: > (moving to advocacy) > > Christopher Browne wrote: >> - The main Tuxedo reseller that I am aware of is PeopleSoft, who use >> it for their "high traffic" clients. Anyone that has seen news lately >> knows that they and Oracle aren't exactly "best pals" these days; >> having another DB option could be helpful to them... > > 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. > > I wonder how we could get them to consider it... XA support so that it would "play well" with Tuxedo would be the best thing I can think of. Arguing that they _should_ consider PostgreSQL when it doesn't support their "scalability extender" wouldn't seem likely to me to sell well. That's _exactly_ why I mentioned both products; congruence of interests... -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html Consciousness - that annoying time between naps.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 22:46:58 -0700, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.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.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 22:46:58 -0700, > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.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. Yeah, I didn't say I *liked* their schema, just that I thought it would be easy for them to support Postgres ;-) Like it or not, they are one of the larger ERP/CRM players (after the merger with JDEwards, they will be *ahead* of Oracle, only second to SAP), and having them offer PostgreSQL support would be significant. If the XA/Tuxedo thing is an issue, they could position it for mid-tier customers who don't need the transaction manager anyway. Joe
Oops! bruno@wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) was seen spray-painting on a wall: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 22:46:58 -0700, > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.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. Ah, so it's like the way SAP R/3's HR module works. (I expect I'm the only one around that is more than passing familiar with "cluster tables"; quite supremely nonrelational stuff, and quite bletcherous...) To a great extent this comes from the nature of the application. HR is all about collecting together "documents," and these applications replace "paper" with "pseudopaper." > They aren't big on using referential integrity to keep the data > clean. Ditto for SAP R/3; "cleanliness" is, there, imposed by only using their applications to do updates, which includes writing your software to invoke their functions. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc")) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html ASSEMBLER is a language. Any language that can take a half-dozen keystrokes and compile it down to one byte of code is all right in my books. Though for the REAL programmer, assembler is a waste of time. Why use a compiler when you can code directly into memory through a front panel.