On 05/09/2017 07:03 PM, Armand Pirvu (home) wrote:
On May 9, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 05/09/2017 05:02 PM, armand pirvu wrote:
Well
Jt1 is prod and jt2 is dev
You are talking schemas, not databases, correct?
Correct
Before someone pushes to prod it does work in dev.
On May 9, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 05:02 PM, armand pirvu wrote:
>> Well
>> Jt1 is prod and jt2 is dev
>
> You are talking schemas, not databases, correct?
>
>
Correct
>> Before someone pushes to prod it does work in dev. The jdbc connection
>
> That would co
On 05/09/2017 05:02 PM, armand pirvu wrote:
Well
Jt1 is prod and jt2 is dev
You are talking schemas, not databases, correct?
Before someone pushes to prod it does work in dev. The jdbc connection
That would concern me, as anything bad that happened in the dev schema
could bring the entir
Well
Jt1 is prod and jt2 is dev
Before someone pushes to prod it does work in dev. The jdbc connection routes
to jt2. In the mean time it wad needed that some tables in prod are synced at
all times from dev. Hence the view/fdw.
What I meant by connections was more to say the type of load or user
On 05/09/2017 02:36 PM, Armand Pirvu (home) wrote:
Hi
I have two schemas jt1, and jt2 in the same db
In both I have the same table tbl3
The idea is to keep in sync jt1.tbl3 from jt2.tbl3 each time I have an
insert/update/delete on jt2.tbl3
So I was thinking about the following cases to avoid r
Hi
I have two schemas jt1, and jt2 in the same db
In both I have the same table tbl3
The idea is to keep in sync jt1.tbl3 from jt2.tbl3 each time I have an
insert/update/delete on jt2.tbl3
So I was thinking about the following cases to avoid replication
1) in jt2 rather than have the tbl3 tab
