If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle lets you
treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using oracle breach
your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and Oracle's
separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature aside.
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 13:58, Alex Turner wrote:
> I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our contract
> with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases ;), so
> I'm kind of tied down by the legalese.
>
> I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, but I talked
> to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).
>
> Alex
>
> On 10/13/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Alex
> Turner:
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> > If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be to support
> > cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a HUGE pain in
> the ass,
> > and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell.
> >
> > I would switch to Oracle tomorrow if I had the budget just
> because of
> > this feature. I have data across four and five databases
> that are
> > related, and I need to build cross database views, and do
> data munging
> > _easily_, DBI link is far from easy, and I suspect that it's
> > performance is far from stellar, but I've not actualy
> benched it. For
> > me this needs to be a core database feature. I have certain
> legal
> > problems that are also an issue where I have to keep data
> that is
> > related in seperate databases, and my clients _want_ me to
> cross join
> > it for select purposes, but I'm legaly required to keep it
> in a
> > seperate database.
>
> Why not put them in separate schemas and tell the customers
> these
> are separate databases? From outside it looks exactly like it.
> You can constraint the users to the different schemas and
> still
> join between the tables at will. See schema-searchpath and
> stuff for sticking users to a schema.
>
> HTH
> Tino
>
>