Where database blog posts get flame-broiled to perfection
Alright, let's pull up a chair. I've got my coffee, my blood pressure medication, and an article that seems to have been written by someone who thinks a firewall is a decorative mantelpiece.
"Use Supabase as a platform for your own business and tools."
Oh, that's precious. Truly. You want me to build a house on top of a Jenga tower that's already sitting on a unicycle. What could possibly go wrong? This isn't a "platform," it's platform-ception. You're not just inheriting Supabase's potential vulnerabilities; you're inviting people to build their own insecure spaghetti code on top of your insecure spaghetti code, all hosted on a service that you fundamentally do not control.
Let's break down this masterpiece of misplaced optimism. So you're going to spin up a Supabase project and then resell it as a service? Fantastic. You're not just a company anymore; you're a cloud provider. Congratulations on your promotion. I hope you've budgeted for a 24/7 incident response team, because you're gonna need it.
You're offering a multi-tenant service, are you? On top of Postgres. I hope—and I mean this with every fiber of my being—that your understanding of Row Level Security is god-tier. Because one slightly misconfigured policy, one USING (true) where there should have been a tenant_id = auth.uid(), and suddenly every single one of your customers is reading every other customer's "private" data. It’s not a data breach, it's an unsolicited data-sharing social event. It's a feature!
And what about your tenants? The businesses you're hosting? Are you letting them run their own code? You're talking about building "tools," after all. Are we talking about Supabase Edge Functions? Oh, lovely. So now I have to worry about your dependencies, Supabase's dependencies, and now every single un-audited npm package your customer, "Dave's Discount Dog-Walking Co.", decides to npm install. It's a supply chain attack Matryoshka doll. One malicious package in one of your tenants' functions, and they could be probing your entire internal network, or worse, using that shared Postgres instance to try and escalate privileges.
"Supabase is just Postgres."
You say that like it's a comfort. Postgres is a powerful, complex, and glorious database. In the hands of a seasoned DBA, it's a scalpel. In the hands of a startup that just read your blog post, it's a rusty, gas-powered chainsaw with no safety guard. They'll be enabling extensions that haven't been updated since 2017, writing plpgsql functions that are just screaming for a SQL injection, and using pg_cron to run a script that accidentally DROPs the auth.users table every Tuesday.
Let's talk about the "magic" of it all. The auto-generated APIs. Supabase sees a table, and poof, you have a RESTful endpoint for it. Every column, every table, suddenly exposed to the world, protected only by that RLS policy you probably forgot to write. Every new feature you add to your "platform" is a new set of endpoints, a new expansion of the attack surface. It's not a feature, it's a CVE buffet, and everyone's invited.
I can just see the SOC 2 audit now. Auditor: "So, can you show me the physical access controls for the server hosting Customer X's data?" You: "Uhh, I can send you a link to Supabase's security page?" Auditor: "And your data segregation controls? How do you guarantee that a process from Tenant A cannot access memory or resources from Tenant B?" You: "...Row Level Security?" Auditor: (Takes a long, slow sip of cold coffee and quietly closes their laptop)
You're not building a business; you're building a shared responsibility model nightmare where you've accepted all the responsibility and have none of the control. You're on the hook for GDPR, CCPA, maybe even HIPAA, and your entire infrastructure is a black box that you pay for monthly. Good luck explaining that to the regulators.
Honestly, this whole trend... treating databases like they're just disposable JSON buckets with a bit of SQL sprinkled on top. It's why I'm so tired. You've abstracted away the difficulty, and with it, you've abstracted away the understanding of the risk. So go on, build your platform on a platform. I'll be here, waiting for the inevitable post-mortem on Hacker News. I'll even bring the popcorn.
Alright, let's pull up the incident report on this... passionate letter. My threat intel feed is going crazy just reading it. It’s adorable that Mr. Kingsbury thinks this is a debate about art. He’s writing a manifesto for expanding the attack surface, and he doesn’t even see it.
First, we have a classic case of a compromised endpoint rationalizing its own behavior. "Steam has been my main source for games for over twenty years." Twenty years of building trust with a user. You know what we call that in my line of work? Long-term persistence. This isn't a loyal customer; it's a social engineering vector waiting for the right payload. He's been conditioned to click "Install" on anything that looks remotely interesting, and now he's actively petitioning you to lower the firewall rules for everyone. Classic insider threat development.
The user admits to acquiring the software from a less-controlled environment: "I bought Horses on Itch." So, you downloaded an unaudited binary from a third-party repository, executed it on your machine, and your immediate takeaway was, "This needs to be on the primary production server!" This isn't a game; it's a potential patient zero. For all we know, Horses is a beautifully crafted piece of ransomware that just happens to have a narrative about authoritarianism. The real "visceral subjugation" is going to be his file system after the encryption routine finishes.
Then he describes the core mechanic: "...an embedded narrative of a VHS tape you must watch and decode to progress." Let me translate that from art student to security professional. You are loading an unvetted, proprietary media codec to parse a malformed video file that requires user input for a "decoding" process. This isn't a feature; it's a bug bounty speedrun. You’ve gift-wrapped a remote code execution vulnerability and called it a puzzle. I can already smell the CVE. I bet the 'decode' input has zero sanitization. Get ready for the Horses-SQL-Injection-of-the-Apocalypse.
The entire argument hinges on comparing this new, unknown risk to previously accepted risks. "What about Cyberpunk? What about Half-Life 2?" This is a catastrophic failure of risk management. That’s like saying, "We let that one guy with muddy boots into the data center, so why can't this new person bring in a bucket of gasoline?" You don't grandfather in vulnerabilities. You remediate them. Arguing for more "transgressive works" is just a fancy way of saying, "Please, for the love of God, help me fail our next SOC 2 audit."
Its four explicit themes... are the repression of violence, religion, chastity, and silence.
It's sweet that you have such strong feelings about games, Kyle. Truly. Now stick to the pre-approved, sandboxed applications before you accidentally unleash a logic bomb that turns every Steam Deck into a brick. Bless your heart.
Ah, yes. I happened upon yet another dispatch from the front lines of 'modern' data engineering, this one breathlessly describing the trials of running a database inside... Kubernetes. It reads less like an engineering document and more like a cry for help from a group of children who have just discovered that playing with matches can, in fact, burn down the treehouse. One is almost compelled to feel pity, but frankly, they brought this upon themselves.
It seems a systematic review of their, shall we say, innovations is in order.
They begin by celebrating the ephemeral nature of their infrastructure. "Pods are ephemeral; nodes can come and go," they chirp, as if building a repository of record on a foundation of quicksand were a laudable design goal. The entire point of a database management system, my dear industry cowboys, is to provide a stable abstraction on top of unreliable hardware. We have known this for half a century. To instead embrace the chaos and call it "cloud-native" is an intellectual capitulation of the highest order. It’s a feature, not a bug!
This invariably leads to their absolute fetish for "eventual consistency." This is a delightful euphemism for "currently incorrect." They've traded the 'C' and 'I' in ACID for a vague promise that your data might be correct... eventually. Perhaps next Tuesday. A bank that is only 'eventually consistent' about one's account balance is a bank that is committing fraud. But slap a trendy name on it, and suddenly it's a paradigm shift. The intellectual sloppiness is simply breathtaking.
Then there is the willful, almost proud, ignorance of Brewer's CAP theorem. They prance around shouting about "Globally Distributed ACID Transactions" as if they've suspended the laws of physics through sheer force of marketing. They speak of high availability and strong consistency in the same sentence without a hint of irony. Clearly they've never read Stonebraker's seminal work on the matter, or they simply chose to ignore it in favor of a more marketable fantasy. They haven't "solved" the trade-off; they've just hidden it behind a dozen layers of YAML and hoped no one would notice.
"Kubernetes moves workloads as needed" Yes, and in doing so, creates precisely the network partitions the theorem warned you about. You've invented a self-inflicted problem. Bravo.
And the data model! If one can even call it that. They've abandoned the mathematical purity of Codd's relational model for what amounts to a glorified key-value store where you can stuff a 20MB JSON document and pray. It violates the spirit, if not the letter, of nearly all Twelve Rules. The idea of a systematic, logical foundation has been replaced by a "flexible schema," which is academic-speak for having no standards whatsoever. It is the informational equivalent of a teenager's bedroom floor.
But do carry on with your little containerized experiments. It's... charming... to see you all discovering, with great fanfare, the very problems that Jim Gray and his contemporaries solved in the 1980s. Keep iterating! With enough venture capital, you might just reinvent the B-Tree next. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a lecture to prepare on third normal form; a concept I fear is now considered hopelessly quaint.
Hmph. I've just had the misfortune of having one of my graduate students forward me a... press release... from the digital playground they call the "modern web." It seems a company named after a particularly uninspired breakfast cereal ingredient has decided to further dilute the already sullied waters of data management. One must, I suppose, document these heresies for posterity, if only as a cautionary tale.
It appears this "Supabase" has decided that being a mere PostgreSQL hosting service—a noble, if uninspired, calling—is no longer sufficient. No, they have now bolted an entire identity management subsystem onto their database offering, a decision so architecturally unsound it would make a first-year undergraduate weep.
...turning your project into a full-fledged identity provider for AI agents, third-party developers, and enterprise SSO.
One shudders. Let us dissect this monument to hubris, shall we?
First, we have the flagrant disregard for the very concept of a database management system. Codd's foundational rules exist for a reason, chief among them being the principle that a system should manage data through its relational capabilities. Instead, we have this... chimera. A database that is also an authentication server. What's next? Will it also brew my morning espresso? This isn't innovation; it's a panicked cramming of disparate services into one monolithic black box, creating a single point of failure so spectacular it's almost poetic. Truly, the single-responsibility principle is just a suggestion to these people.
They speak of "enterprise SSO" while apparently forgetting the sacred tenets of ACID. Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability—these are not buzzwords to be slapped on a feature list, they are a holy covenant. I challenge them to explain the atomic nature of a transaction that involves a third-party OAuth 2.1 handshake, a local user record insertion, and a potential cascade of permissions updates. When a network hiccup causes the token exchange to fail, is the entire operation rolled back with perfect isolation? Or does it leave orphaned, half-authenticated user data littering the tables? The silence, I suspect, would be deafening.
Then there is the laughable ignorance of Brewer's CAP theorem. They promise a system for "AI agents" and "third-party developers"—use cases that demand both blistering availability and unimpeachable consistency. Well, quelle surprise, you cannot have both in a distributed system experiencing a partition. Which will it be, gentlemen? When the network inevitably falters, will my "AI agent" be told a user doesn't exist when they do (sacrificing consistency), or will the entire login system simply cease to function (sacrificing availability)? They've built a system that forces its users into this impossible choice, likely without even realizing it.
This entire affair reeks of a development culture that believes history began with the first commit to a Git repository. It is a solution born of utter contempt for decades of rigorous computer science. One can only assume they've never read Stonebraker's seminal work on the fundamental trade-offs in database architecture. Why bother with the classics when you can simply glue together a few open-source libraries, call it an "identity provider," and write a blog post? Reading papers, it seems, is far too much work when there are venture capitalists to impress.
This entire endeavor is, of course, doomed. It is a house of cards built on a foundation of compromised principles. The inevitable result will be a cascade of data consistency errors and security vulnerabilities so profound that they will serve as a textbook example of architectural malpractice for generations of my future students. Mark my words. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go lie down. The sheer idiocy of it all has given me a terrible headache.
Oh, fantastic. Another dispatch from the future of data engineering, delivered right to my inbox. "Asynchronous streaming," you say? For "massive analytical workloads"? My PagerDuty app just started vibrating preemptively. Let's break down this miracle cure, shall we? I’ve only got a few minutes before my next scheduled existential crisis about our current data pipeline.
I see we're touting efficient, memory-safe queries. That's adorable. I remember those same words being whispered about our last "simple" migration to a document store. The one that turned out to be "eventually consistent" in the same way my paycheck is "eventually" enough to afford therapy. This just sounds like a new, exciting way to watch a query silently fail in the background because the remote API rate-limited you into oblivion, but the wrapper just… gives up without telling anyone. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the eventual consistency model we didn't know we signed up for.
So it’s built on Postgres Foreign Data Wrappers. Wonderful. This isn't my first FDW rodeo. I still have flashbacks to that one time our analytics FDW tried to connect to a third-party API that was down for maintenance. Instead of timing out gracefully, it held every connection in the pool hostage, bringing our entire production application to its knees for two hours at 3 AM. The incident report just said "database connectivity issues," but I knew. I knew it was the FDW. You're not putting a shiny new async engine on a foundational nightmare; you're just strapping a jet engine to a unicycle.
"Enabling... queries for massive analytical workloads" is my favorite kind of marketing lie. It’s a beautifully crafted sentence that business intelligence folks will love and that I will have to clean up after. This just lowers the barrier for someone to write SELECT * FROM big_query_sales_data_2012_to_present JOIN local_users_table. What could possibly go wrong when you make it easier to run a query that tries to download the entire internet through a single Postgres connection? I can't wait for the on-call alert: FATAL: out of memory.
Let’s talk about debugging. My favorite pastime. When a normal query is slow, I can run an EXPLAIN ANALYZE. When this magical asynchronous streaming query hangs, where do I even look? Is it my Postgres instance? The network? The remote data source? Is the stream just "buffering" for the last six hours? This feels less like a feature and more like a Schrödinger's cat situation for data retrieval. The query is both running and has failed catastrophically until I observe it, at which point it definitely has failed catastrophically.
You know what this really is? It's Job Security 2.0. In 18 months, after we've painstakingly migrated half our critical infrastructure to depend on this, some obscure limitation will be discovered. Maybe it handles nested JSON from the remote source poorly, or it chokes on a specific data type. Then, a new blog post will appear, promising a "unified data mesh plane" that solves all the problems created by streaming FDWs. And I'll be here, at 3 AM again, writing the migration scripts to move us off of this "game-changing" solution.
Anyway, I'm sure it's great. I will now be closing this tab and never reading it again. Cheers.
Alright, settle down, let me put my coffee down for this. I just had the marketing department send me this... this inspirational profile. Let's see here... "Alena Fereday, senior solution architect... channels her early love of coding..."
Oh, give me a break. A "Senior Solution Architect". Back in my day, we had two titles: "Programmer" and "Guy Who Yells at the Programmer When the Batch Job Fails." You knew who did what. This "architect" business sounds like someone who draws pretty diagrams on a whiteboard while the actual database groans under the weight of another unindexed, "schema-on-read" fantasy.
Love of coding? Adorable. My first "love of coding" was a stack of punch cards thick as a phone book. You'd spend a week writing your COBOL program, hand the deck over to the operators, and come back eight hours later to a single printout: IKF128I - SYNTAX ERROR ON LINE 487. There was no love. There was only fear, caffeine, and the cold, hard logic of the mainframe. You learned discipline, or you learned to sell insurance.
And this... this is my favorite part:
...a career marked by versatility and hands-on problem solving.
Versatility. That's what they call it now when you can't hold down a job on one platform for more than 18 months. I've been wrangling DB2 on z/OS since Reagan was in office. That's not versatility, son. That's mastery. You kids jump from MongoDB to Cassandra to this Elastic thingamajig faster than I can re-IPL the system. You're not versatile, you're just chasing whatever venture capitalist is throwing the most money at free lunches this quarter.
And "hands-on problem solving"? Let me tell you about "hands-on." "Hands-on" is when the automated tape library jams at 3 AM and you have to physically climb into the silo to unhook a 10-pound cartridge before the nightly backup window closes and the entire bank's transaction log is shot. "Hands-on" is squinting at a 3270 green-screen terminal, debugging a CICS transaction abend by reading a hexadecimal memory dump. I bet her idea of "hands-on" is dragging a new microservice icon onto a Kubernetes deployment chart. It's practically the same thing.
They're all so proud of this Elastic stuff. This "document-oriented" database. It's revolutionary, they say! They got rid of the schema! Brilliant!
You know what we called a database with no predefined schema in 1985? A flat file. A VSAM KSDS, if we were feeling fancy. You're bragging about inventing the digital equivalent of a disorganized filing cabinet. We solved this problem forty years ago with hierarchical databases like IMS, and then we perfected it with the relational model. You're not innovating; you're just speed-running through all of our old mistakes with more RAM and a prettier GUI.
I guarantee you, give it five years. Some "Principal Visionary Officer" is going to stand on a stage and announce a groundbreaking new technology. It'll enforce data integrity, use a structured query language, and ensure transactional consistency. They'll call it "Post-NoSQL" or "Relational-as-a-Service" and get a billion-dollar valuation for reinventing the wheel.
So, good for Alena and her "lifelong learning." I've been lifelong learning, too. I learned that new paint on an old shed doesn't stop the termites. And this whole NoSQL, "move fast and break things" fad is a termite-infested shed waiting for a strong wind. Mark my words, when their "versatile" solution finally collapses under its own schema-less weight, they'll be looking for some old relic who still remembers how to write a real CREATE TABLE statement.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a JCL script to debug. It's only been running for six hours. Probably just warming up.
Alright, grab a cup of lukewarm coffee and listen up. Some fresh-faced DevOps evangelist just forwarded me this "deep dive" on CPU metrics. It's adorable. It’s like watching a toddler discover their own feet, except the feet are basic system performance counters we’ve had for forty years. I’ve seen more revolutionary ideas on a roll of microfiche.
Here's my take on this groundbreaking piece of literature.
Congratulations on discovering "IO Wait". We had a term for this back in my day, too. It was called “waiting for the tape drive to spin up.” The stunning revelation that a process stalled on I/O isn't actually burning CPU cycles is, and I say this with all the sincerity I can muster, a real game-changer for 2025. It’s cute that you needed a fancy dashboard and a complex SELECT query to figure this out. We used to just look at the blinking lights on the disk array. If the "CPU busy" light was off and the "Disk Active" light was having a seizure, we drew the same earth-shattering conclusion. For free.
The breathless exposé on the "silly number" that is load average is my favorite part. You found the comment in the kernel source code! Gold star for you. We knew load average was a blended metric since we were arguing about it over Tab sodas while waiting for our COBOL programs to compile. It includes processes in an uninterruptible sleep state. This isn't a secret; it’s the whole point. It tells you the pressure on the system, not just the raw computation. Treating this like you’ve uncovered a conspiracy is like being shocked that a car's speedometer doesn't tell you the engine temperature. They're... different gauges.
I have to admire the scientific rigor of running fio with 32 jobs to prove that disk I/O... causes I/O wait. Brilliant. Back when we were provisioning our DB2 instances on MVS, we had tools that gave us a complete I/O subsystem breakdown—channel path utilization, control unit contention, head seek times. You kids have "cpuStealPercent," which is just a fancy way of saying you're paying for a CPU that some other tenant is using.
...I've run that on an overprovisioned virtual machine where the hypervisor gives only 1/4th of the CPU cycles... On the mainframe, when you paid for a MIPS, you got a MIPS. This isn't a metric; it's an invoice for time you didn't get. It's the cloud's version of a landlord charging you for the electricity your neighbor uses.
The grand recommendation to replace cpuPercent with cpuUserPercent and cpuSystemPercent is truly the stuff of legends. You’ve basically re-implemented the us and sy columns from the top command. A tool that has existed, in some form, since before most of these "cloud native" engineers were born. I'm half expecting your next blog post to reveal the hidden magic of the ls -l command and how it provides more detail than just ls.
Look, I get it. You have a shiny new observability platform and you need to justify its existence by "demystifying" metrics we've understood for decades. It's all very exciting. You've successfully used a multi-billion dollar cloud infrastructure and a sophisticated SaaS platform to explain what we used to print out on green bar paper from a sar report. The core problem hasn't changed, just the number of PowerPoint slides it takes to explain it.
Thanks for the read. I'll be sure to file this away with my collection of Y2K survival guides. And no, I will not be subscribing.
Alright, let's take a look at this... deep, theatrical sigh.
"Your stack, Your rules." Oh, that's adorable. It really is. It has the same energy as a toddler declaring they're in charge of bedtime. A lovely sentiment, right up until the EULA, the implicit trust assumptions, and the inevitable zero-day vulnerability come knocking. "Non-negotiable," you say? I assure you, when your entire customer database is being auctioned on the dark web, everything becomes negotiable.
You saw the landscape changing with the CentOS migration? How insightful. You "heard our requests"? No, you saw a frantic, vulnerable user base scrambling for a life raft, and you've graciously offered them a pool noodle full of holes. And you're supporting Rocky Linux now. Wonderful. So you've slapped your application onto a new OS. Was there a full dependency audit? Did you vet every library you're pulling in? Or did you just run a yum update, pray to the compliance gods, and call it "enterprise-ready"? Because "enterprise-ready" to me means hardened, tested, and audited—not just "it compiled without errors."
But then you drop the pièce de résistance, the golden ticket for any self-respecting threat actor:
Our telemetry data, which we receive from you, also confirms […]
Oh, you sweet, summer children. Let me translate that from marketing-speak into Incident Response Report-speak. You've just announced to the world that you have a globally accessible, always-on data ingestion pipeline, and you're bragging about it. I don't even need to hack you; I just need to find this endpoint. My mind is already racing.
I can already hear the SOC 2 auditors laughing. Not a polite chuckle, but a full, teary-eyed, gasping-for-air belly laugh as they mark every single control in the Security and Confidentiality trust service criteria as "deficient." You mention "trusted database," but trust isn't a feature you ship; it's a property you fail to earn by making statements like this.
So, by all means, celebrate this launch. Enjoy your moment. But know that people like me aren't seeing a "trusted, enterprise-ready database." We're seeing a sprawling, unaudited attack surface built on a rushed migration, proudly advertising a poorly-defined data collection mechanism.
It’s a bold strategy. Keep up the good work. My job security thanks you for it.
Ah, another "year in review" from the ivory tower, a curated list of the intellectual fireworks that will become my next on-call nightmare. I’m scrolling through this between a PagerDuty alert for a memory leak and a Slack thread about why the dev environment is, once again, on fire. It's always a treat to see the blueprints for my future suffering laid out so neatly. Here’s my "in the trenches" review of your review.
I see a deep dive on Concurrency Control and Serializable Isolation. This is fantastic. I have vivid, waking flashbacks to the Great Deadlock of ‘23, when we implemented a "theoretically perfect" isolation level from a whitepaper just like these. It turns out that theory doesn't account for a million users trying to buy the same limited-edition sneaker at the same time. The database became a very, very expensive single-threaded process. We achieved perfect consistency by achieving zero throughput. A bold architectural choice, to be sure.
"Disaggregation: A New Architecture for Cloud Databases." Oh, good. My favorite. Let’s take the one big, complicated thing I have to monitor and shatter it into twelve smaller, equally complicated things that all have to talk to each other over a network that has the reliability of a politician's promise. Instead of one database falling over, I now get to play Clue at 3 AM to figure out if it was the compute node in the closet with the faulty network cable, or the storage daemon with the memory leak.
You're excited about Formal methods and using TLA+ to prove a system is correct. That’s adorable. You know what my formal verification method is? A 200-line bash script, a pot of coffee black enough to dissolve steel, and the cold sweat that forms when I type apply on a Terraform plan that touches the main user table. Your models prove a system works in a perfect world. My alerts prove it doesn't work in this one.
TLA+ is great for modeling away problems like "Dave from Sales tripped over the power cord" or "An AWS region has spontaneously decided to experience 'weather'."
Oh, and of course, AI. "Supporting our AI overlords: Redesigning data systems to be Agent-first." Let me translate that for you: "Let's bolt an unpredictable, non-deterministic black box that hallucinates its own query language onto our most critical infrastructure." I cannot wait for the ticket that reads: "The billing-agent decided our revenue data would be more 'aesthetically pleasing' if it was all prime numbers and has proactively optimized the production database. Please revert."
This whole list of papers on 'Morty: Scaling Concurrency Control' and 'Vive la Difference: Practical Diff Testing' isn't just a reading list. It’s a preview of the slide deck our CTO, who definitely read your blog, is going to present at the next all-hands. It’s the ammunition for a six-month "simple" migration to a "paradigm-shifting" database that will solve all our problems by creating entirely new, more interesting ones.
Enjoy basking in the warm glow of your sixty posts. I’ll be over here, clutching my emergency rollback script and waiting for one of these "sharp and sensible" ideas to hit my pager.
Ah, yes. I've just been forwarded this... monograph... on a new data-handling paradigm. One must admire the sheer, unadulterated bravery of it. The brevity is particularly striking; a whole architectural philosophy distilled into a single, glorious sentence. It's so... post-textual. A true testament to the modern attention span.
So, this system, let's call it ActionNotifyDB, proposes a revolutionary approach to data integrity. Its core tenet appears to be:
Notify users when security-sensitive actions are taken on their account.
Magnificent. It’s like watching a child build a skyscraper out of mud and declaring that gravity is now "optional." Let's unpack this... masterpiece, shall we?
One must first applaud its courageous rethinking of the ACID properties. Atomicity, for those of you who still frequent the library, is the guarantee that a transaction is an all-or-nothing affair. But here, they've cleverly split the transaction into two distinct, and I can only assume, loosely-coupled phases: the "action" and the "notification." What happens, I wonder, if the "notification" fails? Does the "security-sensitive action"—a password change, perhaps—roll back? Or are we left in a state of transactional purgatory, where the database thinks the change occurred, but the user remains blissfully ignorant? It’s a bold new interpretation, treating a transaction not as a single unit of work, but as a sort of 'Schrödinger's Commit'.
And the data model! 'On their account.' So elegant in its refusal to be defined. One imagines a sprawling JSON document, a veritable digital midden heap where structured data goes to die. Codd's Rule 1, the Information Rule, must be spinning in its theoretical grave. Why bother with the mathematical purity of relational algebra and the simple, verifiable truth of a well-normalized schema when you can just... 'throw it in the blob'? It’s less a database and more a filing cabinet after an earthquake.
But the true genius, the pièce de résistance, is how ActionNotifyDB bravely tackles the CAP theorem. By inextricably linking a core database state change with an external, asynchronous, and inherently fallible notification system, they've created a marvel of distributed computing. They are so committed to Availability (the notification must be attempted!) that they've cheerfully jettisoned Consistency. Imagine the possibilities:
It’s a masterstroke of architectural hubris. Clearly they've never read Stonebraker's seminal work on the fallacies of distributed computing; they've simply experienced them firsthand and called it innovation.
One has to... applaud... the audacity. It's what happens when an entire generation of engineers learns about databases from a Medium article entitled "5 Easy Steps to Ditching SQL." They’ve built a system whose primary feature is a bug, whose design philosophy is a race condition, and whose guarantee of integrity is little more than a hopeful pinky swear.
Honestly, I weep for the future. But at least the notifications will be... prompt. Probably.