Simon Riggs wrote: > On 21 May 2012 20:40, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >>> This is important. I like the idea of breaking down the barriers >>> between databases to allow it to be an option for one backend to >>> access tables in multiple databases.
> So collecting a few requirements from various places: [...] > * Allow users to access tables in >1 database easily, with appropriate rights. > The main objectives are to make a Database a more easily used > administrative grouping. At present, people who use multiple Databases > face many problems - they aren't as separate as you'd like, but > neither can they be ignored when required. > > The idea of "one main database per session" is fine, but wiring it so > closely into the backend has a few disadvantages, many of them weird > internal things. > > Are there arguments against those requirements before we spend time on > design/thinking? From my perspective it is a great advantage that a user connected to one database cannot access objects from a different database without additional software, no matter what permissions he or she has (short of superuser, who can do anything). This enables us to have many different databases in one cluster without having to worry that they can affect each other. If you need different applications to routinely access each other's tables, why not assign them to different schemas in one database? For those cases where you absolutely need access to a different database, you can use dblink or a foreign data wrapper (hopefully in 9.3). So -1 on that particular suggestion. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
