Received: from cygnus.com (runyon.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.5] (may be forged)) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with SMTP id g0MFoql80523 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:50:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from fnasser@redhat.com) Received: from redhat.com (rtl.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.21]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA09903; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:50:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C4D8A39.FF79CDC4@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:50:17 -0500 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects References: <12239.1011661590@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200201/971 X-Sequence-Number: 17966 Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut 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. > Peter is right. Schemas is just a practical way of creating things under the same authorization-id + crating a namespace so that different authorization-ids can have objects with the same (unqualified name). Quoting Date (pg. 221): "The schema authID for a given schema identifies the owner of that schema (and hence the owner of everything described by that schema also)." It is very important that we reach a conclusion on this as it simplifies things a lot. Regards, Fernando P.S.: That is why I was telling you that, except for the namespace part, we already have the groundwork for Entry-level SQL-Schemas (where the schema is always the authorization-id of the creator) -- it is just a question of handling the "owner" appropriately. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9