| From: | Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ravi Krishna <sravikrishna(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |
| Date: | 2020-06-02 20:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | A88FC45A-C57B-491D-B26A-4F0D58F5229F@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jun 2, 2020, at 12:45 , Ravi Krishna <sravikrishna(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Generally speaking, I discourage having lots of databases under one PG
>> cluster for exactly these kinds of reasons. PG's individual clusters
>> are relatively lightweight, after all.
>>
>
> Plus PG does not directly support cross database queries using 3 part name, something
> sqlserver excels at.
Gotta say, not generally a fan of SQL Server, but this is very nice. If I’m dealing with a database with 50 small databases on it, it’s an utter pain to have to set up fdw connections between every set of databases I want to use together.
Any chance of getting this in Postgres? Seems like since the databases are in the same program, this ought to be simpler.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-06-02 20:30:04 | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |
| Previous Message | Ravi Krishna | 2020-06-02 19:45:08 | Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL - a comment |