Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 07:50, Mark Morgan Lloyd
> <markMLl.pgsql-general@telemetry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a limited
>> number of rows:
>>
>> "INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all hosted
>> at different data centers but linked over a type of 'cloud' Each database
>> uses PostGRESSQL which would mean the most amount of data each database
>> could hold with no stability issues is aproximitely equal to that of
>> 10,348,439 Rows" http://pastebin.com/MtX1MDdh
>>
>> Does anybody have any idea where they've got hold of this figure?
>
> PostgreSQL, of course, has no such ridiculous limits.
>
> Whether a specific application running on top of PostgreSQL would have
> a limitation like that, is of course a different question - that might
> certainly be possible, even though the limit mentioned is a really
> weird number.
>
> I find it really hard to parse the text of that post to even
> understand what they mean, but it's rather obviously filled with other
> completely incorrect technical statements, so I wouldn't pay any
> attention to this one in particular. (e.g. since when did you need
> port 25 to download an email attachment? and suddenly they mention
> oracle metasploits, which obviously wouldn't work on postgres)
I'm not paying attention because of the amount of rubbish in that text,
but other people are likely to if Google makes the connection between
the current unpleasantness and this project- which is why I'm avoiding
mentioning certain names. I don't know for certain who these INPS people
are or why they think they're qualified to pontificate.
The Oracle angle could be related to older SQL injection attacks (2008?)
or somebody could be assuming that a compatibility layer introduces
vulnerabilities.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
