They managed to do everything they could without customer involvement. The rest (retiring keys and stuff) can not be handled by them due to nature of the problem.
Now that the technical issue has been resolved by other smart people, I'm gonna replace our cert keys and be just fine.
Yes, and "sit there refreshing a page over and over waiting to see if they update it because they refuse to even give you a hint of when they expect to be done" is not acceptable.
Yes, that is not good enough, and it was already over a day into their complete lack of communication. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it is not an argument. I would expect a company of amazon's size to give customers precise and useful info. Not a vague "should be done in a few hours" after a day of silence.
Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of people here saying "The service is great - we didn't have to do anything!". Sure hope someone tells those people to re-key their certificates at some point.
Sure, I came in after their disaster to clean up, and their issue was their backups weren't up to date and they had no replication etc (it was a small site, no sysadmin, they rebooted their server during a busy time and boom! All the other services came up ok, but not mysql). The fact that Mysql failed and ended up with corrupted dbs on a simple reboot (not power failure) doesn't fill me with confidence - that really shouldn't happen. That's just an anecdote of course, but I think I prefer working with psql anyway.
I find the official documentation to be superior for postgres (YMMV), but I think there are certainly more examples / blogs / tutorials for MySQL.
I prefer to work with Postgres when I can, but I also have found instances where MySQL better fit my needs, a heap table, even with more recently added index only scans ( and even reordering the table with cluster may not be desirable) you may want an index organized table (oracle term ) (mysql would say clustered index )
I am curious why even in the context of freely available engines we focus on competition, which I think can lead to great things, but I don't understand the animosity the communities feel towards one another, isn't it just a matter of horses for courses? Are we really interested in competitive kills or improving both the tools we use and our understanding thereof ?
I don't mean to single your comment out gbog, and I know this is certainly not exclusive to databases either ( witness almost any discussion of various programming languages on HN )
The MySQL clustered index (and Oracle IOT) are, in my opinion, often over looked powerful features. To pick an example I recently encountered ... I have an Rails app to implement a RSS reader. Each user has many feeds that get added over time. If you cluster the feeds on user_id then all the feeds for a given user will be in a single database block or two, so reading them out is super efficient. If they are in a standard heap table, (or the way Rails creates the table by default, clustered on ID), then reading the list of N feeds could require N database block reads in the extreme case. Same goes for all articles on a given feed - cluster the related articles together and its very efficient to find the most recent articles for a feed.
in at least some cases, animosity comes from people who've have to clean up someone else's exploded mess in the tech of their targeted derision.
I do think many (most?) people are interested in seeing all tools get 'better' over time, but what needs to be improved, or how it should be improved, often don't get agreed on.
This actually made me think of: Oracle's "UTF8" vs "AL32UTF8" which I consider to be a gotcha, even though it is reasonable in terms of the evolution of the standard, a modern land mine perhaps.
The lack of limit sucks, but the thing that annoys me most regularly is that Oracle refuses to make the 0 length string / null behavior configurable to allow for ANSI compliance ( MySQL null handling is worse IMO, makes me insane.... )
Oracle historically has poor support. Here's an old example with an ADO bug, they never fixed it even though the support ticket was open for almost 2 years!
and unfortunately, they are the only ones who can offer support or implement a patch for their software!
With postgres and mysql you can find many companies competing to offer great service, and who can contribute their fixes and improvements directly should they so choose. The stronger the output of these communities and the organizations that support them, the more pressure for even the companies like Oracle to improve ( or perish :))
What if we think about it in terms of augmentation of capabilities and something that is divorced from this implementation. People want to have the capabilities, without being seen to be entrapped by them. An example I suppose would be wearing headphones at a party or a concert ( anti-social) vs having easily accessible a vast array of music to be tapped at will during the many times when this is not considered to be anti-social. Can we receive more information without being anti-social? If there was no perceptible disengagement? Is it simply a function of developing a social context?
I have a bluetooth headset for making phone calls more safely with my older car (not capable of interfacing directly with my phone), and I don't agree with demonizing headset users, but the biggest issue that I personally found was related to the fact that the headsets were hard to see. Making it unclear when someone was talking on a call or to those around them. The headphones with mics, I find them to be less of an issue because they are more visible even though it would seem to present the same opportunities for confusion.
There was a time when vision correcting glasses were considered very strange I would imagine, but they proved to be very useful and we become accustomed to seeing them. What will be fun, I think, is as others have postulated wearable tech becoming less apparent to the naked eye, so much so that the plastic brick will be considered odd, and that one would WEAR vision correcting lenses mounted in metal or plastic frames right on the face?!
The blacklist has no chance of defending against malicious users. Luckily (at the moment) we are using this purely internally and the blacklist is really just preventing people from shooting themselves in the foot. We're moving to a read-only user role shortly, and the suggestion to go with a read-only db is a great one.
I took a look at this before I undertook building SQL explorer, but it looked like overkill and I didn't want to learn a new query language and introduce a learning curve to every employee who might write queries. But it does look fairly full featured. Have you used it? Is it low-friction enough that people want to use it?
Adoption was good especially for simple queries, people were less focused on the language, and more focused on exploring/modifying examples.
For people who are already familiar with SQL and as you said, less interested in the query language, it may be almost immediately frustrating.
I can absolutely see circumstances where it would be overkill, I have never tried to use it as a performance critical tool, just as more an easy thing to slap on to ease access, two aspects that I have found useful on more than one occasion:
1. HTRAF toolkit is convenient for very basic visualization (depending upon the audience this can be very useful to have at hand quickly)
2. multiple output formats (json in particular) has been helpful in terms of quickly hacking together prototypes in the past
"In deployment, a routing layer handles routing requests from a public-facing hostname to the port-bound web processes."