Pettis, Barry wrote:
> An addon???? Being self schooled in databases to me this seems to be a
> kludge.
Ah, well, self-schooling is always a good position from which to make
sweeping generalisations.
> If you work in a large company environment the odds that
> someone somewhere is all ready storing or collecting data that you need
> ( by this I mean base data ) could probably be pretty high. So why, if
> PostGre is so old/established, is the ability to share information
> between databases have to be done through an add on.
Because the whole point of a database is to be a coherent set of
connected facts. What is your opinion on handling:
1. Differing character-sets in different databases
2. Differing locales+sorting in different databases
3. Cross-database foreign-keys and other constraints
4. Differing objects with the same names in different databases
5. Handling #1-4 when the databases are on different physical servers.
> Now let's say that another person NEEDS that very information in a query
> or table in their own database. Are you saying that each person needs
> to generate this. To me the sharing of information seems to be so basic
> that within a said postgre server, that as along as you have access to a
> said database you should be able to say use the data stored here. And
> that that ability should be a rudimentary ability not an addon.
It sounds to me like you want to share a single database between users,
possibly using a suitable mix of schemas and roles to apply suitable
permissions. If you don't want them to have shared access to the data
then you can have separate databases and grant them access only to their
own DB.
> Reason why I don't' have ability to install addon's onto the database.
Nobody is forcing you to. You'll have problems with procedural
languages, custom types, dictionaries, replication, GIS though.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
