Well I'm just toying with an idea. The problem I'm facing is that I
would like clients to only see the tuples that they have created and
own. I guess I'll just skip direct sql access to the db and write some
API on top of it that manages the data. Not a big deal but it
complicates things :-)
S.
On 9/22/07, Hiltibidal, Robert <Robert.Hiltibidal@argushealth.com> wrote:
> How is this possible?
>
> It smacks of a security issue which there are many proven solutions to
> that.
>
> Would you elaborate?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Arentz
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Subject: [SQL] Many databases
>
> I'm in a strange situation where it makes more sense to give each user
> it's own database instead of having a single database with users and
> permissions. How does PG deal with that? Is it a problem to have have
> say a thousand small databases?
>
> S.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
> This email transmission contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual
orentity named above. If the reader of the email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
fordelivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this
emailtransmission is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete
theemail and immediately notify the sender via the email return address or mailto:postmaster@argushealth.com. Thank
you.
>
>
>
>
>
