| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aaron Bono <postgresql(at)aranya(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, carlosreimer(at)terra(dot)com(dot)br, rodrigo(dot)sakai(at)zanthus(dot)com(dot)br, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hiding table structure information |
| Date: | 2006-06-27 16:01:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20060627160148.GA7623@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 19:48:32 -0500,
Aaron Bono <postgresql(at)aranya(dot)com> wrote:
> Would there be a way to set up the 2 databases - one with the tables and
> data and the other that connects to the first with views into the second
> database?
>
> Actually I am interested because I will soon need to set up a way to feed
> data to multiple databases and would love to have a stored procedure or
> trigger that, when the data is updated in one database, the changes are
> propagated to all the other databases.
There is a contrib package dblink that will do at least some of what you
want.
You might also see if just separating stuff into different schemas will
be good enough for you. That would allow you to have separate name spaces
but still be able to reference tables in other schemas efficiently.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Hoover | 2006-06-27 16:49:25 | Re: 8.1.3 - autovacuum question |
| Previous Message | Thomas Mack | 2006-06-27 14:17:01 | Re: Aborting transactions |