Although there are historical reasons behind our "schema per tenant" architecture, it provides very good logical separation of data, and is very convenient that we don't need to include the tenant ID in each query (I'm sure that it would cause lots of bugs and trouble).
Besides, we use Hibernate and it has great support for this architecture.
> In any case, I'm interested in what works well for you.
I went with the dynamic solution I proposed in my original email (which performs a UNION of the queried table from all tenants).
Performance is currently not a priority in our use-cases, otherwise I would have probably chosen a more static solution (which wouldn't be easy to maintain continuously, I'm sure of).
I further simplified its usage, so finally it is fairly comfortable to use either directly:
select tenantId, (record).*or by using a temporary view:
from tenant_query(null::mytable)
where (record).type=2
order by tenantId, (record).name;
create temp view all_tenant_mytable as> In my case, the revision/version of the schema could be different as well
select tenantId, (record).* from tenant_query(null::mytable);
select *
from all_tenant_mytable
where type=2
order by tenantId, name;
This complicates things very much, it is probably not possible to implement a solution as comfortable as in my case.
Although I think the JSON-based solutions proposed in this thread would work in your case as well.
In my current solution I also use JSON as intermediate representation - although I feel it is because of my lack of deeper knowledge of Postgresql's type system.
The difference is that you would need to use JSON as the final representation, and reference the JSON fields using Postgres's JSON operators.
> And if/when I get back to this issue myself, I'll do the same.
My current solution is not much different than the one I posted in my original question.
My main difficulty was the relatively static nature of Postgresql's type system, so this solution is a result of lots of trial-and-error rounds :)
Take a look at it, and you (and maybe others) may have recommendations, e.g. how I could get rid of the usage of the intermediate JSON "layer".
(Although I have to admit: it is amazing that it is possible to implement this at all ;) )
As you can see in my examples above, I use the tenant_query() function but in your case (if your schemas are different) something similar to tenant_query_json() may work better.CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION tenant_query_json(tbl anyelement)
RETURNS setof json AS $func$
declare
_select text;
begin
_select := (select
string_agg(
format('select t.*, %L tenantId from %I.%I t', schema_name, schema_name, pg_typeof(tbl)),
E'\n' || ' union all ' || E'\n')
from (
SELECT schema_name
FROM information_schema.schemata
where schema_name not in ('information_schema') and schema_name not like 'pg_%'
) tenants
);
return query execute 'select row_to_json(r) from (' || _select || ') as r';
END;
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION tenant_query(tbl anyelement)
RETURNS table(tenantId text, record anyelement) AS $func$
begin
return query
select t.tenantId, t.rec
from (
select
jr->>'tenantid' tenantId,
json_populate_record(tbl, jr) rec
from tenant_query_json(tbl) jr
) t;
END;
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
--
Norbi
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steve Baldwin <steve.baldwin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> If the number of tenant schemas is reasonably static, you could write a
> plpgsql function to create a set of UNION ALL views
Another idea is to build a partitioned table
Hi Norbert. I asked a [similar question][1] a while back,and unfortunately didn't get any actionable input, perhapsbecause I already mentioned in my message the optionsproposed here so far. Seems like people like us, using adynamic number of schemas, are outliers in database-land.
In my case, the revision/version of the schema could bedifferent as well, which would complicate the partitioning idea.
In any case, I'm interested in what works well for you.And if/when I get back to this issue myself, I'll do the same.
Thanks, --DD
