X-Original-To: pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C18A11F6C52; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:41:15 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.115 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.115 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihiFg9jdL3DH; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:41:08 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.logix-tt.com (unknown [212.211.145.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916CC11F6C2F; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:41:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Tba08.t.pppool.de [89.55.186.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BB3656CD; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:42:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559B8181C1F3F; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4444C253.3030204@logix-tt.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:23 +0200 From: Markus Schaber Organization: Logical Tracking and Tracing International AG, Switzerland User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [JDBC] Thoughts on a Isolation/Security problem. References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200604/159 X-Sequence-Number: 21328 Hi, Achilleus, Achilleus Mantzios wrote: [schema trickery] > Why do you think its ugly after all? It is not ugly to split such things via schemas per se, but it is ugly to use this schema trick together with a bunch of views, rules and triggers to "upgrade" a legacy single-deployment application into a multi-deployment application with some limited cooperation / data sharing. Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org