Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE

On 22 May 2012 18:56, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm not arguing that we don't have users who would like interdatabase
> queries, especially when they port applications from MySQL or MSSQL.  We
> have a lot of such users.

Lots and lots, yes.

> However, we *also* have a lot of users who
> would like to treat separate databases as virtual private instances of
> Postgres, and there's no way to satisfy both goals. We have to choose
> one route or the other.

That's only true if you try to satisfy both goals at once, which I'm
not suggesting. So I believe that proposition to be false.

However, given sufficient people speaking against it, I'll leave this idea.

Though I'd suggest that people on this thread spend a little quality
time with FDWs. It's a great direction but there's a long way to go
yet. Sorry to Laurenz, who's done a great job so far on the Oracle
FDW.

> I personally see the isolation case as the more necessary because there
> are several workarounds for the "inter-database queries" issue

I also want that, per my original post.

> An alternative idea -- and one which could be deployed a lot faster --
> is to come up with a tool which makes it easy to migrate an entire
> database into a separate schema or set of schemas in an existing
> database.   And improvements to manage schema visility/path better, I
> suppose.

Yes, it is possible to improve things there also.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services