Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PG vs MySQL

From: Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com>
To: scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org (Marc G(dot) Fournier)
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com (Joshua D(dot) Drake),scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org (Marc G(dot) Fournier),alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com (Alex), postgresql(at)finner(dot)de (Frank Finner),pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL
Date: 2004-03-30 00:16:03
Message-ID: 200403300016.i2U0G4aZ019384@gw.tssi.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
> Now, that doesn't preclude clients from seeing the names of another
> clients database using \l, but unless there is gross mis-management of the
> pg_hba.conf, seeing the names of other databases doesn't give other
> clients any benefits ...

That rather depends upon what those clients are doing, doesn't it?

I can see benefits from being able to completely isolate one client/database
from another,  even to the point of not giving them any hints that they're 
sharing the same database server.  (Depending on how fanatical I am about 
it, there are other solutions, such as separate instances or completely 
separate physical systems, but those present a different set of 
administrative issues.)

It may be more of a marketing issue than a technical one.  If we want 
increased commercial acceptance, that may be one of the higher priority 
features from an ISP's (or his clients') point of view, if not from ours.  
--
Mike Nolan


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-03-30 00:44:43
Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-03-29 23:12:28
Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group