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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 ? |