AW: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inhe rited from template1

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inhe rited from template1
Date: 2000-11-09 15:47:16
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368101@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> To me, though, the point of independent databases is that they be
> *independent*, and therefore if we keep them I'd vote for mapping them
> to the top-level SQL notion (catalog, you said?). Schemas ought to be
> substructure within a database.

Yes, that was also "sort of" the bottom line of the lengthy thread, so
I guess we could call it a plan.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-11-09 15:50:29 Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-09 15:43:28 Re: Question about reliability?