| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd) |
| Date: | 2001-01-22 17:14:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0101221812210.1090-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB writes:
> > It's not required by SQL, that's for sure. I think in 7.2 we'll tackle
> > schema support, which will accomplish the same thing.
>
> It does not (e.g. remote access).
Maybe this is handled better by an external corba server or some such
thing.
> > Many people
> > (including myself) are of the opinion that not allowing cross-db access is
> > in fact a feature.
>
> Can you tell me what that "feature" gains you other than mere inconvenience ?
> And are you implying, that all the other db's are misfeatured in this regard?
It's a safety/security measure to me. As long as one backend process can
only touch one database you can control things much better. This could be
overcome of course, but I'm quite happy with it.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Burton | 2001-01-22 17:18:54 | Re: AW: Re: MySQL and BerkleyDB (fwd) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-22 17:10:46 | Re: FW: Postgresql on win32 |