Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Rakesh Kumar
Тема Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Дата
Msg-id DM2PR05MB622C130E6BDE3779A13CFC38CC10@DM2PR05MB622.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Ответы Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases  (Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org>)
Список pgsql-general
> ok, thats ridiculous, isn't it.   so now its time to find a compromise.

You don't understand how sales people pitch our products. We deal with financial data
and our customers are extremely sensitive to even imagining that their data will co-reside
with that of their competitors who also are our customers. A typical fear mongering Q from
them "what if due to a bug in your s/w, our competitors end up looking at our data" or
something like that. That's why schema level vs db level discussion.

Just a reminder, I started this thread to learn more on the technical drawbacks of choosing
either option. For example, in SQL Server, having multiple databases in an instance does not
mean more significantly pressure on resources (as compared to multiple schemas). In DB2
it does since many resources like cache (buffers) are db specific.

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Achilleas Mantzios
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Следующее
От: Masahiko Sawada
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"