| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "chris smith" <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to implement a "subordinate database"? |
| Date: | 2006-04-20 00:14:44 |
| Message-ID: | 57EAFA5B-0445-4006-A6AE-B20D9CDF3E31@myrealbox.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Apr 19, 2006, at 20:31 , chris smith wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Kynn Jones <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I keep bumping against this situation: I have a main database A,
>> and I want
>> to implement a database B, that is distinct from A, but
>> subordinate to it,
>> meaning that it refers to data in A, but not vice versa.
>>
>> I don't simply want to add new tables to A to implement B, because
>> this
>> unnecessarily clutters A's schema with tables that entirely
>> extraneous to
>> it.
How about putting B's tables in a separate schema in the same
database as A?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-04-20 00:39:00 | Re: Categories and Sub Categories (Nested) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-19 23:23:27 | Re: Calling the same function more than once with the same arguments |