| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-03-30 00:44:43 | Re: PG vs MySQL |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-03-29 23:12:28 | Re: PG vs MySQL |