Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Peter Harvey <pharvey@codebydesign.com>
Organization: CodeByDesign
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:39:05 -0800
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201211840260.687-100000@peter.localdomain>
	<12239.1011661590@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <12239.1011661590@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <02012117390500.02279@p12.codebydesign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

FYI: Applications like Data Architect would benefit from a consistent and 
complete interface to the schema. For example; I found that we had to bypass 
the DD views which exist (as I recall) because they did not give us all 
information we needed. So we selected stuff from the system tables directly. 
Yucky. Sorry I can not recall details but thought that I would mention this 
here. The MySQL 'SHOW' statements seem to work pretty well and shields us 
from changes to the system tables.

Peter

> 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.  I think we can
> arrange things so that we are upward compatible with both SQL92 and
> the old way.  Haven't worked out details yet though.
>
> Have to run, more later.