Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

By segregating as much as you can. Definitely not by putting everything in a single table. At the very least separate databases/schemas with proper permissions so there's not any chance of data intermiBy segregating as much as you can. Definitely not by putting everything in a single table. At the very least separate databases/schemas with proper permissions so there's no chance of data intermixing.

The best would be multiple separate database instances, which is not even hard to manage specially for qualified engineers like Atlassian surely has plenty of. The problem are business decisions of ignoring the tech debt, usually...



Now every time you run a database migration, you have to adjust N tables - and in Atlassian's case, N is 200000. Is that better? It depends. There is no "best" way of doing multitenancy.


That’s just an automation issue. It’s not like you have to write a bespoke database migration script per DB.


The bug we are mitigating was also just an automation issue.


It’s also pretty easy to foobar up a single DB instance if you don’t have proper guardrails in place.

Automation wasn’t the issue here. It’s the symptom not the cause.


No, the symptom was the loss of customer data.


Way easier, actually.


There is a worst way of doing multitenancy, and that is sharing a single big table.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: