| From: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Norbert Sándor <sandor(dot)norbert(at)erinors(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: query multiple schemas |
| Date: | 2024-04-23 07:33:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAFCRh--7Oh2CFdAhqN-GXbGt63djxHN2SYLHUwt_MKcYZZuTKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If the number of tenant schemas is reasonably static, you could write a
> > plpgsql function to create a set of UNION ALL views
>
> Another idea is to build a partitioned table
>
Hi Norbert. I asked a [similar question][1] a while back,
and unfortunately didn't get any actionable input, perhaps
because I already mentioned in my message the options
proposed here so far. Seems like people like us, using a
dynamic number of schemas, are outliers in database-land.
In my case, the revision/version of the schema could be
different as well, which would complicate the partitioning idea.
In any case, I'm interested in what works well for you.
And if/when I get back to this issue myself, I'll do the same.
Thanks, --DD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Norbert Sándor | 2024-04-23 09:08:26 | Re: query multiple schemas |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-04-22 22:06:40 | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |