Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  IT might be that in order to be
considered to be complying with the contract you have to setup oracle in
such a way as to disable any database to database access / joining.
Seems to me the second you can run a query that hits both databases you
might well be in breach of contract, depending on the terminology used.

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:44, Alex Turner wrote:
> Of course, but _legaly_ we would be complying with the contract ;)
>
> Alex
>
> On 10/13/05, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
>         If separate databases are required by contract, and oracle
>         lets you
>         treat multiple databases like one big one, wouldn't using
>         oracle breach
>         your contract then?  In this case, PostgreSQL's schemas and
>         Oracle's
>         separate databases are functionally identical, nomenclature
>         aside.
>
>         On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 13:58, Alex Turner wrote:
>         > 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
>         >
>         >
>