PM: Let‘s store each database tables on different servers for more security.

Me: ._____.‘

No words can describe what I just read 🤦🏼‍♂️

Good luck mate
Also, search for a new job?

I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take. When people run in circles it's a very very
<...>
<...>

"sure, and let's also have a new policy that states that every sentence you say to me must be preceded with a secret handshake. You know, for security."

Separation of services taken a little bit too far 😅 is the PM also gonna pay for all the extra servers and the maintenance clusterfuck that'd be?

I say we kill that PM for love of the god.

@gitpush How does that add up? 😂

@ScriptCoded That's my way of saying: No comment *filled with shock and anger* lol

Hey, actually I have a question about that: I watched the Udacity of the former CTO of Reddit and I remember that at some point he explained that they separated their tables into different databases on different machines.
In what scenario do you want to do something like that?

Don't stop there, store each column on different server.

@Gnonpi that's called sharding. You do it to scale your database when you have huge datasets

That means each table got to have different database right?

I don't think you're at that scale yet.

If you have billions of rows per table and tens of thousands of tables, separating them makes sense and massively improves performance.

But you'd likely come to that conclusion if you had enough data to warrant it, so clearly you don't. In your case, it's a very bad idea because of added overhead, and you'd actually lose performance due to the increased number of requests (and correlation!).

Your PM is either an idiot or over-engineering.

(Also, this has nothing to do with security, so I'm going with idiot. 😊)

Ok, our postgres guy told us to never do sharding, I start to understand why

@netikras mad world 🎵