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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 6:15 PM
To: Peter Eisentraut
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
-------------------------------------------------------
Click link below if it is SPAM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=45bff9ca316118362916074&[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1"
!DSPAM:45bff9ca316118362916074!
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
