| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? | 
| Date: | 2002-04-04 20:45:04 | 
| Message-ID: | 27412.1017953104@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually that was my initial choice of name, but I changed my mind
>> later.  The reason is that the dbadmin should be able to restrict or
>> even delete the public namespace if his usage plans for the database
>> don't allow any shared objects. 
> Can't we prevent creation in there by (un)setting permissions?
That was what I was referring to by "restrict" ... but ISTM we should
allow dropping the namespace too.  Why waste cycles searching it if
you don't want to use it?
> There should be a more practical way of making it empty than having to
> drop
> each object individually (DROP will drop the contents but refuse to
> delete
> the schema itself as it is a pg_ one?).
I'd expect DROP on a reserved namespace to error out, and thus do
nothing at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-04-04 21:07:35 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? | 
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-04-04 20:35:49 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |