| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
| Date: | 2002-02-25 01:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | 13902.1014600289@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> The syntax of the CREATE SCHEMA SQL standard command is
> CREATE SCHEMA AUTHORIZATION userid
> Shouldn't we be using
> CREATE DATABASE AUTHORIZATION userid
> to be consistent?
Seems like a very weak analogy; there's no other similarities between
the two command syntaxes, so why argue that this should be the same?
Also, the semantics aren't the same --- for example, there's no a-priori
assumption that a database owner owns everything within the database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-25 01:42:15 | Nice Oracle tuning article |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-02-25 01:11:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-25 02:00:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-25 01:11:57 | Re: Basic DOMAIN Support |