Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: 2002-01-22 23:31:08
Message-ID: 29288.1011742268@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Moreover, I figure if we do it that
> way, the whole schema implementation reduces itself mostly to parser work,
> no complicated system catalog changes, no complex overhaul of the
> privilege system -- at least initially.

Why are you guys so eager to save me work? I'm not in the least
interested in implementing a "schema" feature that can only handle
the entry-level user == schema case. Therefore, just relabeling the
owner column as schema isn't an interesting option.

I really don't see what's wrong with building a namespace mechanism
that is orthogonal to ownership and then using that to implement what
SQL92 wants. I think this will be cleaner, simpler, and more flexible
than trying to equate ownership with namespace.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2002-01-22 23:50:05 Re: Cross posting
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-01-22 23:27:35 Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects