I could, but it would breach the terms of our contract. Our contract with the data providers clearly specifies seperate databases ;), so I'm kind of tied down by the legalese.
I have certainly considered just putting them in schemas, but I talked to legal and they didn't really like that idea ;).
Alex
On 10/13/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de> wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Alex Turner:
...
>
>
>
> If I had just one wish for postgresql it would be to support
> cross-database queries like Oracle. This is a HUGE pain in the ass,
> and DBI-Link syntax is clunky as hell.
>
> I would switch to Oracle tomorrow if I had the budget just because of
> this feature. I have data across four and five databases that are
> related, and I need to build cross database views, and do data munging
> _easily_, DBI link is far from easy, and I suspect that it's
> performance is far from stellar, but I've not actualy benched it. For
> me this needs to be a core database feature. I have certain legal
> problems that are also an issue where I have to keep data that is
> related in seperate databases, and my clients _want_ me to cross join
> it for select purposes, but I'm legaly required to keep it in a
> seperate database.
Why not put them in separate schemas and tell the customers these
are separate databases? From outside it looks exactly like it.
You can constraint the users to the different schemas and still
join between the tables at will. See schema-searchpath and
stuff for sticking users to a schema.
HTH
Tino