| From: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Martin L(dot) Buchanan" <martinlbuchanan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RLS without leakproof restrictions? |
| Date: | 2023-02-22 03:45:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAPPfruzXrFdUfxoHBouo4UGSiBK_BZLEL_1x+dR+kepYSBGEUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Martin
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 13:12, Martin L. Buchanan <martinlbuchanan(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> Anyway, Tom if it is feasible to put each tenant into its own database on
> the same server instance, that is what I recommend.
>
It is not, unfortunately. For brevity I skipped over some details - the
"tenants" are possibly hundreds or thousands of different parts of large
organisations and a single application user may be granted access to some
or all of them. So strategies involving separate databases or schemas are
mostly out.
Thanks
Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-22 03:46:05 | Re: RLS without leakproof restrictions? |
| Previous Message | Martin L. Buchanan | 2023-02-22 02:41:49 | Re: RLS without leakproof restrictions? |