From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-22 23:18:38 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201221816130.686-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> I don't buy that premise. It's true that SQL92 equates ownership of a
> schema with ownership of the objects therein, but AFAICS we have no hope
> of being forward-compatible with existing database setups (wherein there
> can be multiple tables of different ownership all in a single namespace)
> if we don't allow varying ownership within a schema.
We could have a Boolean knob that says "if you don't find the object in
the default schema, search all other schemas". That should provide all
the backward compatibility we need. 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.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-22 23:27:35 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-22 23:18:15 | Re: Cross posting |