| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-22 15:22:23 |
| Message-ID: | 8803.961687343@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> A database corresponds to a catalog and a schema corresponds to nothing
>> yet.
> Oh I see your point. However I've thought that current PostgreSQL's
> database is an imcomplete SCHEMA and still feel so in reality.
> Catalog per database has been nothing but needless for me from
> the first.
It may be needless for you, but not for everybody ;-).
In my mind the point of the "database" concept is to provide a domain
within which custom datatypes and functions are available. Schemas
will control the visibility of tables, but SQL92 hasn't thought about
controlling visibility of datatypes or functions. So I think we will
still want "database" = "span of applicability of system catalogs"
and multiple databases allowed per installation, even though there may
be schemas subdividing the database(s).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-22 15:27:30 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-06-22 15:14:43 | Re: Thoughts on multiple simultaneous code page support |