I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to be considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining. Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you might well be in breach of contract, depending on the terminology used. On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:44, Alex Turner wrote: > Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;) > > Alex > > On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle > lets you > treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using > oracle breach > your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and > Oracle's > separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature > aside. > > On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 13:58, Alex Turner wrote: > > I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our > contract > > with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases > ;), so > > I'm kind of tied down by the legalese. > > > > I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, > but I talked > > to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;). > > > > Alex > > > > On 10/13/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb > Alex > > Turner: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be > to support > > > cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a > HUGE pain in > > the ass, > > > and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell. > > > > > > I would switch to Oracle tomorrow if I had the > budget just > > because of > > > this feature. I have data across four and five > databases > > that are > > > related, and I need to build cross database views, > and do > > data munging > > > _easily_, DBI link is far from easy, and I suspect > that it's > > > performance is far from stellar, but I've not > actualy > > benched it. For > > > me this needs to be a core database feature. I > have certain > > legal > > > problems that are also an issue where I have to > keep data > > that is > > > related in seperate databases, and my clients > _want_ me to > > cross join > > > it for select purposes, but I'm legaly required to > keep it > > in a > > > seperate database. > > > > Why not put them in separate schemas and tell the > customers > > these > > are separate databases? From outside it looks > exactly like it. > > You can constraint the users to the different > schemas and > > still > > join between the tables at will. See > schema-searchpath and > > stuff for sticking users to a schema. > > > > HTH > > Tino > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
