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.groups@gmail.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.groups@gmail.com> wrote: On Nov 19, 2007 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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/
