Re: What are the advantages of not being able to access multiple databases with one connection?
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What are the advantages of not being able to access multiple databases with one connection? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHyXU0y2fK5c0tm7itdVoe3gBbD=LuSJxkOoV9=rjVUH0XzsBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What are the advantages of not being able to access multiple databases with one connection? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:37 AM, crocket <crockabiscuit@gmail.com> wrote: >> MySQL permits a connection to access multiple databases. >> But Postgresql restricts a connection to one database. >> I think postgresql database connection is somewhat limited. >> >> Is it an old and decrepit design? or does it deserve some appreciations? > > I think it deserves some appreciation. Each database is completely > isolated in terms of privileges, which is sometimes useful. Also, if > you somehow manage to fry the system catalogs in one database, the > other ones can still survive. The role played by databases in MySQL > is served by schemas in PostgreSQL, so I don't see that there is a > functional gap here. I am not sure I'd bother implementing the > multi-database concept today if we didn't have it already ... but it > seems kind of pointless to rip it out given that it's already there. A little trivia: postgres supports full database qualified identifier names: postgres=# select postgres.public.foo.i from postgres.public.foo; Even though you can't specify any other database than the one you're in. merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: