Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PHA8l94963 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:10:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0PH4Cf26410; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:04:12 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD , "Joe Conway (wwc)" , Fernando Nasser , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects In-reply-to: <200201251652.g0PGq4L23522@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200201251652.g0PGq4L23522@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:52:04 -0500" Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:04:12 -0500 Message-ID: <26407.1011978252@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200201/1225 X-Sequence-Number: 18194 Bruce Momjian writes: >> I am starting to see the advantages and like it. I also like the exact >> name "public" for the public schema. > I wonder if we should think about a 'group' area so people in a group > can create things that others in the group can see, but not people > outside the group. I see no reason to hard-wire such a concept. Given createable namespaces, ACLs for namespaces, and a settable namespace search path, people can set up group namespaces or anything else they want. The (temp, private, public, system) path is suggested as default because it's the minimum we need to support both SQL92 and backwards-compatible behaviors. I don't think we should put in special-purpose features beyond that, when we can instead offer a general mechanism with which people can build the special-purpose features they want. regards, tom lane