From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-25 22:26:14 |
Message-ID: | 7708.1011997574@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> writes:
> Specifically to the question of schema pathing, why would you want it to
> be session-settable? Either your DB app is designed to work w/ schemas, or
> it isn't.
So that you can set the correct mode for your client application. It is
silly to suppose that an installation-wide or even database-wide setting
is sufficient. Consider for example a database shared by multiple
pieces of client software; wouldn't you like to be able to upgrade them
to schema-awareness one at a time?
You could possibly make a case for a single setting per user, but even
that makes an assumption (user == client software) that I think is not
reasonable for us to force on all Postgres installations.
Basically I haven't got a lot of patience for arguments that say we do
not need flexibility. There are more people out there, using Postgres
in more different ways, than either you or I know about.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-01-25 23:41:16 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-01-25 22:07:58 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |