| From: | "Matthew T(dot) OConnor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Iavor Raytchev <iavor(dot)raytchev(at)verysmall(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data |
| Date: | 2002-08-30 18:43:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200208301443.38126.matthew@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
> As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not
> always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application
> (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any*
> changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial
> software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or
> problems when upgrading.
Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at
all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably
don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or
schemea.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-30 18:51:43 | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-30 18:12:28 | Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | terry | 2002-08-30 19:12:32 | Re: pgaccess - where to store the own data |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-30 18:12:28 | Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data |