Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> No, I meant that we wouldn't have physically separate databases anymore
>> within an installation, but would provide the illusion of it via
>> schemas. So, only one pg_class (for example) per installation.
>> This would simplify life in a number of areas... but there are downsides
>> to it as well, of course.

> Oops. This seems the wrong way to go. Increasing coupling between
> databases to support schemas really means that we've traded one feature
> for another, not increased our feature set.

You could argue it that way, or you could say that we're replacing a
crufty old single-purpose feature with a nice new multi-purpose feature.

I'm not by any means sold on removing the physical separation between
databases --- I can see lots of reasons not to. But I think we ought
to think hard about the choice, not have a knee-jerk reaction that we
don't want to "eliminate a feature". Physically separate databases
are an implementation choice, not a user feature.

regards, tom lane