Comedy aside, this makes a lot of sense: The shared data has nothing private in it at all - it's chemical info. Sharing it is no worse than sharing the application code, or the OS's libraries. It's the customer's data which needs to be isolated.
On 11/18/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I appreciate that. But realistically if you had locked information > isolation > down via permissions and appropriate views the information for each > customer would be as safe as it would using separate databases or > even servers. True. But, being human, we make mistakes. The simpler things are, the less likely the chance of mistake. Sep. DBs = simple, dumb. "ocked information isolation down via permissions and views" = complicated, smart. When it comes to reliability, dumb is good. On 11/18/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2007 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ shrug... ] If your lawyers insist on that, wouldn't they also object > > to all customers linking to the same copy of the shared data? They > > should, if they know what they're about. > You're implying that that lawyers understand what database, schema > and shared data are ... ? > > > > regards, tom lane > Cheers, > Andrej > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/ >
