[oftenwrong]

Schemas are similar to databases in mysql. They serve as a namespace. In mysql you can have a database `foo` and a table `foo.bar`. In postgres you can have a schema `foo` and a table `foo.bar`. In postgres you can have multiple databases in a cluster, and multiple schemas within each of those databases.

[eznzt]

What you are basically saying is that yes, they are much more complex.

[rleigh]

They are not complex, and they are entirely optional. They are just a namespace. You are free to never, ever use them.

For a company the size of Uber, I don't think spending five minutes reading the documentation for createuser is a significant burden to deployment. PostgreSQL is very easy to deploy.

[desas]

It's another layer, you don't have to use it. If you pretend schemas don't exist you basically never know they do, unless you go looking for complexity in the postgres bowels.

[Tostino]

To be honest, it's better to think of MySQL db = Postgres schema, because I'm MySQL you can do cross db queries and there is no intermediary schema level, and in Postgres you can do cross schema queries, but not cross db queries.

[chris_wot]

No, what you mistake for "complexity" seems to be your general unfamiliarity of what a schema is. In fact, when you understand what schemas are, then it actually makes a lot more sense.