From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-interfaces" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
Date: | 2002-05-01 03:20:22 |
Message-ID: | 4471.1020223222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What about "CREATE USER tgl WITH SCHEMA;" ?
Uh, what about it? It's not a standard syntax AFAIK.
If I were running an installation where I wanted "one schema per user"
as default, I'd rather have an "auto_create_schema" SET parameter that
told CREATE USER to do the dirty work for me automatically.
But the sneaky part of this is that users are installation-wide,
whereas schemas are only database-wide. To make this really work
painlessly, you'd want some kind of mechanism that'd auto-create
a schema for the user in every database he's allowed access to.
How can we define that cleanly?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2002-05-01 03:28:33 | Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Schemas: status report, call for developers |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-05-01 02:15:44 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2002-05-01 03:28:33 | Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Schemas: status report, call for developers |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-05-01 02:15:44 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |