Expanding the audience ...
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:52 PM To: FDO Internals Mail List Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: PostGIS provider connection question I don't have any real objections to this, though I don't have a vested interest in the PostGIS provider at this point. It would probably be best to go to the mapguide and fdo users lists for feedback from real PostGIS users. The original design decision was made because we had limited resources after moving away from the initial decision to implement using the generic RDBMS framework. It was easier not to support multiple databases (something about ListDataStores, a lack of cross-database query capabilities in PostgreSQL, getting a bit fuzzy now) and at the time I didn't have a requirement for multiple databases on the same server, or cross-schema data access from a single connection. As a note, I believe that best practice is not to store the PostGIS support in the public schema, but in an alternate schema using a search path. I'm not entirely up to date on this though. Jason From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 6:55 AM To: FDO Internals Mail List Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: PostGIS provider connection question Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts on the topic below? Thanks, Orest. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 11:06 AM To: FDO Internals Mail List Subject: [fdo-internals] PostGIS provider connection question Hi, I have a concern about the current connection parameters that the FDO PostGIS provider is using. The current situation is this. To make a connection to PostGIS we need to specify a service and a datastore. The service is mapped to datab...@server:port And the datastore to The physical postgis schema So a typical connection would be Service : mypgdatab...@myserver:5432 Datastore : public But a PostGIS server can contain multiple databases with each database containing multiple schemas, which contain the tables. My question is why wouldn't we set up a connection mapping that exposes the PostGIS databases as FDO datastores and the PostGIS schemas as FDO schema, similar to how we do it with SQL Server, which has similar concepts. So, connection information would be: Service: server:port, e.g. MyServer:5432 Datastore: PG database name, e.g. MyPGDatabase Then, within that datastore, we have schemas called 'public' and any other schemas that the user has created there, such as "landbase", "transportation", "utilities", etc. I realize that this has already been implemented and changing this could have some backwards compatibility issues with applications and MG resource definitions. But, maybe the benefits of having a better datastore / schema mapping to PG database / schema would be worth figuring out how to deal with the compatibility issues? What do you think? Thanks, Orest.
_______________________________________________ fdo-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________ mapguide-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
