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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group