Re: Separation of clients' data within a database

From: Niklas Johansson <spot(at)tele2(dot)se>
To: pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Separation of clients' data within a database
Date: 2006-12-01 12:31:07
Message-ID: 45BE21F2-98AF-42AD-AE0D-90132C3D86A8@tele2.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

How about this:

* Have one master schema that holds all physical tables. This schema
is accessible only by the superuser.

* Create a schema which contains views that mirror the master schema.
This is the schema that the customers connect to, each using a
different db role, and since it's a mirror of the master schema, it
means no change in app structure (except dropping rights management,
see below).

* Let these views pull their data from the respective master schema
table (i.e. SELECT * FROM ...) with the addition of a WHERE-clause on
client_id, that uses a function: ...WHERE client_id IN (get_client_ids
()).

* The 'get_client_ids()'-function should query a table in the master
schema that keeps the client_id's that are assigned to each db role
(e.g. SELECT client_id FROM foo WHERE role=CURRENT_USER), and return
those client_id's. For a regular customer, it would return one
client_id, for a supervisor kind of user, it would return two or
more, perhaps even all, client_id's.

* Have UPDATE and INSERT rules on the views that store the data in
the actual master schema tables. (The rules would of course have to
add client_id, this time through a function that can only return one
client_id.)

To conclude: one master schema, one mirrored customer schema that
adapts to the db role, one additional table in the master schema to
handle the rights.

Sincerely,

Niklas Johansson
Phone: +46-322-108 18
Mobile: +46-708-55 86 90

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arnaud Lesauvage 2006-12-01 13:12:44 Re: COPY FROM and NULL AS does not work
Previous Message surabhi.ahuja 2006-12-01 11:48:50 Re: sudden drop in delete performance