Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases

From: Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Date: 2016-10-01 23:21:47
Message-ID: CANu8FizbGD05qL4-gfKzL=Mr77xvXJ0-NNE4OMmj-4CeVo10jg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:

> On 10/1/2016 12:52 PM, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>
> Do your clients authenticate directly to the database, or to the app server?
>
> thru app server.
>
>
> do you run a separate instance of the app for each tenant, or is there one
> app that identifies the tenant and handles them accordingly ?
>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
>

*I would like to comment on the multiple schema vs databases situation.
First of all, 1000's of databases is insanity and just asking for trouble.
Next, 1000's of schemas is a nightmare to maintain. I understand the
requirement for client data to be "isolated", but in reality, data is never
really separated. Once it's on the server, any good hacker with a knowledge
of SQL can find it. So, IMHO, the best solution is to isolate by a client
ID in the tables of one database. Then make sure you have sufficient and
correct security on those tables.*

--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rakesh Kumar 2016-10-02 00:26:14 Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Previous Message John R Pierce 2016-10-01 20:52:41 Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases