Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE

On 22 May 2012 18:18, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Ability to have a Role that can only access one Database
>>
>> 2. Allow user info to be dumped with a database, to make a db
>> completely self-consistent
>>
>> 3. Allow databases to be transportable
>>
>> 4. Allow users to access tables in >1 database easily, with appropriate rights.
>
> The last requirement seems completely contradictory to the other three.
>  Either we're trying to make databases even more isolated as
> multi-tenant Catalogs, or we're not.  Trying to do both at the same time
> is failure-by-design.

Why is it OK to allow somebody to access multiple schema in one query,
but not multiple databases? Are you arguing that schemas are also
broken?

I see no failure by design. I see an idea for greater ease of use
being discussed.

> Given that we offer schema as an alternative to multiple databases, and
> users are starting to get used to them, I think that requirement (4) is
> just a bad idea, and not worth pursuing,

Personally, I have long recommended that people use schemas. But
people do use databases and when they do they are pretty much screwed.
I brought this up as a way of improving our ease of use.

> except in the context of pgsql_fdw.

That is not a realistic option.

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