From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tony Caduto <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? |
Date: | 2007-01-31 06:03:25 |
Message-ID: | 1170223405.30488.11.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:45 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> >> That being said, I think it is a dumb feature. If you have data in
> >> one database, that requires access to another database within the
> >> same cluster. You designed your database incorrectly and should be
> >> using schemas.
> >>
> >>
>
> I would have to disagree, it's a feature that has been available on M$
> SQL server and the other commercial
> databases for years. It's hardly a dumb feature.
I think it's a more complex problem than most people think. For
instance, if I do:
/connect db3
begin;
set transaction isolation level serializable;
insert into mytable (id1, id2) (select a.id, b.name from
db1..schema.table a join db2..schema.table b);
what exactly DOES that transaction isolation level mean? We don't have
distributed transactions yet... I can see this creating as many
problems as it solves, at least in the short run. Especially if people
start doing updates based on cross db joins.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason L. Buberel | 2007-01-31 06:11:28 | Re: When an index and a constraint have the same name... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-31 06:02:13 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |