I wouldn't be so sure of that. IT might be that in order to be
considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in
such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining.
Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you
might well be in breach of contract, depending on the terminology used.
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:44, Alex Turner wrote:
> Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
>
> Alex
>
> On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> wrote:
> If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle
> lets you
> treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using
> oracle breach
> your contract then? In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and
> Oracle's
> separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature
> aside.
>
> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 13:58, Alex Turner wrote:
> > I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our
> contract
> > with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases
> ;), so
> > I'm kind of tied down by the legalese.
> >
> > I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas,
> but I talked
> > to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On 10/13/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb
> Alex
> > Turner:
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be
> to support
> > > cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a
> HUGE pain in
> > the ass,
> > > and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell.
> > >
> > > I would switch to Oracle tomorrow if I had the
> budget just
> > because of
> > > this feature. I have data across four and five
> databases
> > that are
> > > related, and I need to build cross database views,
> and do
> > data munging
> > > _easily_, DBI link is far from easy, and I suspect
> that it's
> > > performance is far from stellar, but I've not
> actualy
> > benched it. For
> > > me this needs to be a core database feature. I
> have certain
> > legal
> > > problems that are also an issue where I have to
> keep data
> > that is
> > > related in seperate databases, and my clients
> _want_ me to
> > cross join
> > > it for select purposes, but I'm legaly required to
> keep it
> > in a
> > > seperate database.
> >
> > Why not put them in separate schemas and tell the
> customers
> > these
> > are separate databases? From outside it looks
> exactly like it.
> > You can constraint the users to the different
> schemas and
> > still
> > join between the tables at will. See
> schema-searchpath and
> > stuff for sticking users to a schema.
> >
> > HTH
> > Tino
> >
> >
>