| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-29 10:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA59AB@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > As I said in another posting a user does not need to exist
> > for each schema. The dba can create objects under any
> > schema name.
> >
>
> Sorry for my poor understanding.
> What I meant was that SQL92 allows the following.
>
> schema owner
> ---------------------------
> schema1 user1
> schema2 user1
> schema3 user2
> schema4 user3
> schema5 user3
> schema6 user3
>
> Is my understaning same as yours ?
Yes, this is how I read the spec 99. Also:
schema1 user1
schema1 user2
I doubt that this really buys any features that a simple grant cannot give.
I mean, if a user creates an object with a schema name that is different
from his user name we could simply grant him all rights on this object
(if he isn't dba).
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-06-29 10:33:03 | Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump |
| Previous Message | stanislas pinte | 2000-06-29 10:08:19 | Fwd: URGENT PROBLEM: connection time-outs of postgresql backend/frontend |