Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases

From: Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Date: 2016-09-30 10:06:55
Message-ID: DM2PR05MB622C130E6BDE3779A13CFC38CC10@DM2PR05MB622.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> ok, thats ridiculous, isn't it. so now its time to find a compromise.

You don't understand how sales people pitch our products. We deal with financial data
and our customers are extremely sensitive to even imagining that their data will co-reside
with that of their competitors who also are our customers. A typical fear mongering Q from
them "what if due to a bug in your s/w, our competitors end up looking at our data" or
something like that. That's why schema level vs db level discussion.

Just a reminder, I started this thread to learn more on the technical drawbacks of choosing
either option. For example, in SQL Server, having multiple databases in an instance does not
mean more significantly pressure on resources (as compared to multiple schemas). In DB2
it does since many resources like cache (buffers) are db specific.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-09-30 10:54:58 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"
Previous Message Achilleas Mantzios 2016-09-30 09:47:16 Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases