Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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