| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com>, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 17:58:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20160930175831.GU5148@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
* Jeff Janes (jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > We require complete data isolation. Absolutely nothing should be shared
> > between two tenants.
>
> Then you need different clusters per tenant. Otherwise, the WAL records of
> different tenants are inextricably mingled together.
Different clusters are also required to have independent file-level
backups, independent roles, independent tablespaces, etc.
It's also far easier to move a single cluster from one system to another
to adjust for growth than to try and move an individual schema or
database.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rakesh Kumar | 2016-09-30 18:12:34 | Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-09-30 17:53:22 | Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases |