Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

From: Pete Forman <pete(dot)forman(at)westgeo(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1
Date: 2000-11-09 16:17:20
Message-ID: 14858.52752.454996.583633@marvin.bedford.waii.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner writes:
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most people will equate database
> with a schema (ie. the thing in which you define tables).

I agree with most of what you say. However I am used to conflating
catalog with database. For example, the last product I put together
had one read-only schema and created one schema per project managed.
The client code accessed two or more schemata at a time. We used the
term database to mean all the schemata.
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pete(dot)forman(at)westgeo(dot)com -./\.- the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- its divisions.
***== My old email address gsez020(at)kryten(dot)bedford(dot)waii(dot)com will ==***
***== not be operational from Fri 10 to Tue 14 Nov 2000. ==***

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-11-09 16:30:36 Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-11-09 16:16:20 AW: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inhe rited from template1