Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

heh... anythings possible ;) I guess we are okay for now then seeing that we
are using postgresql with no dblinkg ;)

Alex

On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>