Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
I actually disagree, mildly.
Keep in mind that I was speaking generally and to that note, I generally
agree with what you suggest below. The point I was trying to make
and wasn't be clear enough about is most people that want the feature,
want it for the wrong reasons. :)
Joshua D. Drake
Our system uses two variants of two types of data.
Client data has a presence in the billing database, but has an incarnation in our runtime servers to allow for authentication. Not the same databases, since we can't afford the extra time for the hop, which might be scores of miles away and not necessarily available. Not exactly the same data, and not all of the billing stuff goes to runtime.
Spatial data has a representation in our backroom servers which support processing incoming imagery. Runtime has a similar representation (with some serious handwaving for speed) of the spatial data. And there's some links between content management and billing to allow for royalties. Again, similar but not identical data/purposes.
Informix has a capability (a "synonym") to make a table in another instance appear as a local table; certain operations aren't possible [remote index structures aren't visible IIRC and a few data manipulations]. I could use a synonym to do joins and updates on the remote tables in native SQL; with postgres I need to do a lot more handwaving -- actually pulling logic out of the databases and putting it into applications. (Yes, db-link would work but it seemed
Sorry for top-posting but this interface doesn't do graceful quoting, etc.
Greg Williamson
DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 6:15 PM
To: Peter Eisentraut
Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tony Caduto
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This has been discussed about ten thousand times, and the answer is
still no.
Actually the answer is: Check the TODO list. It is listed under Exotic
features, so the answer is, no we can't yes we would like to.
That being said, I think it is a dumb feature. If you have data in one
database, that requires access to another database within the same
cluster. You designed your database incorrectly and should be using schemas.
If you have data in one database that requires access to another
database that is not in the same cluster (which happens alot) use dbi-link.
Joshua D. Drake
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
-------------------------------------------------------
Click link below if it is SPAM gsw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=45bff9ca316118362916074&user=gsw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1";
!DSPAM:45bff9ca316118362916074!
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
