Re: Sharing static data among several databases

Comedy aside, this makes a lot of sense:
The shared data has nothing private in it at all - it's chemical info.
Sharing it is no worse than sharing the application code, or the OS's
libraries. It's the customer's data which needs to be isolated.

On 11/18/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate that. But realistically if you had locked information
> isolation
> down via permissions and appropriate views the information for each
> customer would be as safe as it would using separate databases or
> even servers.

True. But, being human, we make mistakes. The simpler things are, the less
likely the chance of mistake. Sep. DBs = simple, dumb. "ocked information
isolation down via permissions and views" = complicated, smart. When it
comes to reliability, dumb is good.

On 11/18/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2007 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > [ shrug... ] If your lawyers insist on that, wouldn't they also object
> > to all customers linking to the same copy of the shared data? They
> > should, if they know what they're about.
> You're implying that that lawyers understand what database, schema
> and shared data are ... ?
>
>
> > regards, tom lane
> Cheers,
> Andrej
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
>