On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 16:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> What should I do if I want to have 2 completely seperated databases in
> PostgreSQL? I want each database to have its own data, log and
> everything needed to access that database. I don't want them to share
> anything. Has anyone
> and I'm willing to entertain other suggestions.
Very nice, but you missed the most important. Command Tag.
--
Rod Taylor
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > But for seperating out applications from each other, there's really
> > nothing to be gained by putting each seperate database application into
> > it's own cluster.
>
> I believe the initial email requested individual logs, and presumably
> the abilit
Hello,
Depending on your needs and transaction load per database you can easily
run 30 databases on a machine with 2 Gig of RAM. You will of course have
to use initdb for each cluster and change the tcp port for each cluster
but it works just fine.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECT
Rod Taylor wrote:
Last time I looked,
you couldn't get the database name in the log files to allow for
mechanical filtering
Watch this space.When my log_disconnections patch makes it through the
filter process it will be followed up with a patch that allows tagging
of log lines with a printf-sty
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 17:48:51 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you very much for your reply. I'd like to discuss the why.
>
> I don't think letting them share data and logs could gain me something.
> And if I have 2 databases totally not relevant, I think the most natural
> way is to m
> But for seperating out applications from each other, there's really
> nothing to be gained by putting each seperate database application into
> it's own cluster.
I believe the initial email requested individual logs, and presumably
the ability to grant superuser access without risking a user c
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you very much for your reply.
>
> Yes, that's true. But it seems not a good idea if I have many databases
> and I want them totally seperated with each other.
>
> What's your opinion? Thanks.
OK, here's the issue. Postgresql uses certain res
Well, in postgresql you have a cluster, and inside the cluster, you have
databases, and inside the databases you have schemas.
You cannot cross database boundaries with transactions. i.e. you can
begin a transaction, insert into two databases and roll it back.
Transactions live within a singl
Thank you very much for your reply.
Yes, that's true. But it seems not a good idea if I have many databases
and I want them totally seperated with each other.
What's your opinion? Thanks.
--Hong Ge
Quoting Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 16:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much for your reply. I'd like to discuss the why.
I don't think letting them share data and logs could gain me something.
And if I have 2 databases totally not relevant, I think the most natural
way is to make them totally seperated. Does the sharing buys me
anything? If not, what's
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> What should I do if I want to have 2 completely seperated databases in
> PostgreSQL? I want each database to have its own data, log and
> everything needed to access that database. I don't want them to share
> anything. Has anyone done th
12 matches
Mail list logo
