On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > I'm not arguing that we don't have users who would like interdatabase > queries, especially when they port applications from MySQL or MSSQL. We > have a lot of such users. However, we *also* have a lot of users who > would like to treat separate databases as virtual private instances of > Postgres, and there's no way to satisfy both goals. We have to choose > one route or the other.
I think the idea that a physical machine where catalogs are physically (shared-everything) co-located is one that will not stand for long as part of a useful contract between a user and the database. I'd really like to avoid an extra tier of functionality that exists only for databases that happen to land on the same physical machine. I think any inter-database feature should work identically between two databases across a network as two machines on one machine/cluster. Transparent optimizations to deal with the special case of physical co-location are not contrary to that contract, but I don't have a sense of how important those optimizations would be before getting a lot of the usability issues figured out. Right now, it seems to me that getting interdatabase usability feeling better is already pretty hard. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
