On 06/28/2011 04:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 05:45 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>> I think Greg might be forgetting that some of us don't always get to
>> choose what we work on. I was in a shop that decided to go with
>> multi-tenancy for reason both technical and um, er envious.
> There are certainly successful deployments of multi-tenant PostgreSQL
> out there, ones that make sense. What I was trying to communicate is
> that the particular variation proposed by this academic paper doesn't
> seem the right direction for PostgreSQL development to head in to me.
> This project is stubborn about resolving the problems people actually
> have, and the ones the paper tries to solve are not the ones I've seen
> in my own experiments in multi-tenant deployments.
Yes, your point is well taken here, and that wasn't even hinted at in my
previous (top! oops) post. My point was that hacks in the field (i.e.
me) will have to do multi-tenancy on postgres and though this
implementation may not become the answer, any leg up would be appreciated.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: John R Pierce||Date: 2011-06-28 23:07:32|
|Subject: Re: DROP TABLE Appears to Fail|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2011-06-28 23:03:04|
|Subject: Re: rationale behind quotes for camel case?|