| From: | Mark Morgan Lloyd <markMLl(dot)pgsql-general(at)telemetry(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql, PSN hack and table limits |
| Date: | 2011-05-02 06:31:27 |
| Message-ID: | iplj40$6ld$1@pye-srv-01.telemetry.co.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Smith wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 01:50 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a
>> limited number of rows
>
>
> Did you find this via
> http://www.reversecurity.com/2011/04/new-details-from-psn-hack.html ?
> That was the only Google-indexed source leading to it I found. I just
> left a note there about the silliness of these claims. I could run more
> than a 10M row PostgreSQL instance on my phone. Unless there's a new
> 16-bit only Vic 20 port of PostgreSQL available or something, it's seems
> unlikely the data had to be partitioned due to any hard limit.
Yes, via Google. I was digging around for any information about what
sort of access and APIs the network made available to end-user (or
ersatz developer) systems.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marek Więckowski | 2011-05-02 07:35:33 | auto-reconnect: temp schemas, sequences, transactions |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-05-02 04:31:49 | Re: Postgresql, PSN hack and table limits |