Thread: How to implement a "subordinate database"?

On 4/19/06, Kynn Jones <kynnjo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I keep bumping against this situation: I have a main database A, and I want
> to implement a database B, that is distinct from A, but subordinate to it,
> meaning that it refers to data in A, but not vice versa.
>
> I don't simply want to add new tables to A to implement B, because this
> unnecessarily clutters A's schema with tables that entirely extraneous to
> it.

Hmm. Postgres supports table inheritance, but I don't think it
supports schema or database inheritance in the way you want it to.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/tutorial-inheritance.html
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/ddl-inherit.html


--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/

On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:19:50 -0400,
  Kynn Jones <kynnjo@gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep bumping against this situation: I have a main database A, and I want
> to implement a database B, that is distinct from A, but subordinate to it,
> meaning that it refers to data in A, but not vice versa.
>
> I don't simply want to add new tables to A to implement B, because this
> unnecessarily clutters A's schema with tables that entirely extraneous to
> it.
>
> Is there some other way?

Have you looked at schemas?

On Apr 19, 2006, at 20:31 , chris smith wrote:

> On 4/19/06, Kynn Jones <kynnjo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I keep bumping against this situation: I have a main database A,
>> and I want
>> to implement a database B, that is distinct from A, but
>> subordinate to it,
>> meaning that it refers to data in A, but not vice versa.
>>
>> I don't simply want to add new tables to A to implement B, because
>> this
>> unnecessarily clutters A's schema with tables that entirely
>> extraneous to
>> it.

How about putting B's tables in a separate schema in the same
database as A?

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com