Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0MNVOl31958 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:31:24 -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 g0MNV8f29291; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:31:08 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:18:38 -0500" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:31:08 -0500 Message-ID: <29288.1011742268@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200201/1006 X-Sequence-Number: 17994 Peter Eisentraut writes: > 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. Why are you guys so eager to save me work? I'm not in the least interested in implementing a "schema" feature that can only handle the entry-level user == schema case. Therefore, just relabeling the owner column as schema isn't an interesting option. I really don't see what's wrong with building a namespace mechanism that is orthogonal to ownership and then using that to implement what SQL92 wants. I think this will be cleaner, simpler, and more flexible than trying to equate ownership with namespace. regards, tom lane