From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | James Harper <james(dot)harper(at)bendigoit(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: owner as namespace? |
Date: | 2006-02-08 23:43:41 |
Message-ID: | 18140.1139442221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> IIRC, the idea of a schema came from Oracle where the schema is the
> username. If you create a schema with the same name as the user what
> you describe above works. ie mydb.james.myview is in the james schema
> in the mydb database.
Actually that isn't an Oracle-ism, it's a reasonable interpretation of
the minimum requirements of the SQL standard: if you associate each user
with a schema named after and owned by that user, you get the minimum
spec behavior. It sounds like MSSQL is doing about the same thing.
Our default search_path setting is set up to support this usage, btw.
See "Usage Patterns" in the schema documentation.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/ddl-schemas.html
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-09 00:06:25 | Re: Confirming the autovacuum daemon is running |
Previous Message | Rodolfo Campos | 2006-02-08 23:36:43 | Re: Insert into other database |