On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:37 AM, crocket <crockabisc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> MySQL permits a connection to access multiple databases. >> But Postgresql restricts a connection to one database. >> I think postgresql database connection is somewhat limited. >> >> Is it an old and decrepit design? or does it deserve some appreciations? > > I think it deserves some appreciation. Each database is completely > isolated in terms of privileges, which is sometimes useful. Also, if > you somehow manage to fry the system catalogs in one database, the > other ones can still survive. The role played by databases in MySQL > is served by schemas in PostgreSQL, so I don't see that there is a > functional gap here. I am not sure I'd bother implementing the > multi-database concept today if we didn't have it already ... but it > seems kind of pointless to rip it out given that it's already there.
A little trivia: postgres supports full database qualified identifier names: postgres=# select postgres.public.foo.i from postgres.public.foo; Even though you can't specify any other database than the one you're in. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
