| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |
| Date: | 2000-07-10 14:29:40 |
| Message-ID: | 298.963239380@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> It occurs to me that this'd get a whole lot more feasible if one
>> postmaster == one database, which is something we *could* do if we
>> implemented schemas. Hiroshi's been arguing that the current hard
>> separation between databases in an installation should be done away
>> with in favor of schemas, and I'm starting to see his point...
> This is interesting. You believe schema's would allow a pool of
> backends to connect to any database? That would clearly be a win.
No, I meant that we wouldn't have physically separate databases anymore
within an installation, but would provide the illusion of it via
schemas. So, only one pg_class (for example) per installation.
This would simplify life in a number of areas... but there are downsides
to it as well, of course.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert D. Nelson | 2000-07-10 14:36:00 | RE: PostgreSQL & the BSD License |
| Previous Message | Rémy Dufour | 2000-07-10 14:22:28 | Backends don't die |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-07-10 14:30:31 | Re: Progress report: intraquery memory recovery in executor |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 14:26:30 | Re: More info |