Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server?

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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