From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:06:30 -0500
Message-ID: <12239.1011661590@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201211840260.687-100000@peter.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201211840260.687-100000@peter.localdomain>
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Remember that a schema is a named representation of ownership, so anything
> that can be owned must be in a schema. (Unless you want to invent a
> parallel universe for a different kind of ownership, which would be
> incredibly confusing.)
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.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
In-Reply-To: <12239.1011661590@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox