3 ms·
I don't see how that differs from allowing a thick client written in wxPerl from directly connecting to the database. It seems quite useful in many cases. One
by einhverfr 15y ago
I don't see how that differs from allowing a thick client written in wxPerl from directly connecting to the database. It seems quite useful in many cases.
One thing to keep in mind about PostgreSQL is you can do a lot of traditional middleware tasks (including message queues) in the database back-end with transactional control. These can even be hooked into other applications
Remember, you can put a lot of what would otherwise go in a middleware layer in the database itself, especially with features in PostgreSQL like LISTEN/NOTIFY.
There are some limitations of this approach, but in general, I have found it ideal, but it requires thinking about your database differently. Instead of a data store on the bottom of the stack, you have an intelligent data storage and queuing system in the center of your environment.
- cbsmith 15y agoOne of the interesting changes in our reality, is the case for increasing scalability by having a middleware layer that does all the work has become quite weak. It's much cleaner to partition your systems and work that way.
- einhverfr 15y agoI don't think it's just that the performance case for middleware has become weak. It's also that traditionally you pay per connection some sort of license fee. So if you are running Oracle or SQL Server, and you want to add additional clients that, say, do additional process on notification, that means additional license fees. This isn't a problem on PostgreSQL. It means there are choices between the traditional ones of putting everything in the database or in the middleware.