Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 18:41:57 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: What object types should be in schemas?
Message-ID: <20230112174157.bxlfvg3hriwv5ur2@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <422c5d78-839f-8232-cd16-a887979ef901@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230112174157.bxlfvg3hriwv5ur2%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-Jan-11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> How does one decide whether something should be in a schema or not?  The
> current state feels intuitively correct, but I can't determine any firm way
> to decide.
> 
> Over in the column encryption thread, the patch proposes to add various key
> types as new object types.  For simplicity, I just stuck them directly under
> database, but I don't know whether that is correct.

I think one important criterion to think about is how does encryption work
when you have per-customer (or per-whatever) schemas.  Is the concept of
a column encryption [objtype] a thing that you would like to set up per
customer?  In that case, you will probably want that object to live in
that customer's schema.  Otherwise, you'll force the DBA to come up with
a naming scheme that includes the customer name in the column encryption
object.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad
de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre
un paso más allá de la lógica" (Irulan)