From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | crocket <crockabiscuit(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What are the advantages of not being able to access multiple databases with one connection? |
Date: | 2012-11-05 23:50:22 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0y2fK5c0tm7itdVoe3gBbD=LuSJxkOoV9=rjVUH0XzsBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:37 AM, crocket <crockabiscuit(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> MySQL permits a connection to access multiple databases.
>> But Postgresql restricts a connection to one database.
>> I think postgresql database connection is somewhat limited.
>>
>> Is it an old and decrepit design? or does it deserve some appreciations?
>
> I think it deserves some appreciation. Each database is completely
> isolated in terms of privileges, which is sometimes useful. Also, if
> you somehow manage to fry the system catalogs in one database, the
> other ones can still survive. The role played by databases in MySQL
> is served by schemas in PostgreSQL, so I don't see that there is a
> functional gap here. I am not sure I'd bother implementing the
> multi-database concept today if we didn't have it already ... but it
> seems kind of pointless to rip it out given that it's already there.
A little trivia: postgres supports full database qualified identifier names:
postgres=# select postgres.public.foo.i from postgres.public.foo;
Even though you can't specify any other database than the one you're in.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-06 00:12:42 | Re: alter table tablename add column - breaks pl/pgsql function returns tablename |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-05 23:15:30 | Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables |