Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153C0475C77; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ool-4352919e.dyn.optonline.net [67.82.145.158]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A82E4759BD; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zeutnull.zeut.net (zeutnull [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7UIhcd2014353; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by zeutnull.zeut.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7UIhcx9014351; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:38 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Matthew T. OConnor" To: Joe Conway Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:38 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Dave Page , Iavor Raytchev , pgsql-hackers , pgsql-interfaces References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8677C@mail.vale-housing.co.uk> <1030730363.13569.5.camel@zeutnull> <3D6FB58C.4010501@joeconway.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6FB58C.4010501@joeconway.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200208301443.38126.matthew@zeut.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/18 X-Sequence-Number: 3079 > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > problems when upgrading. Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at= =20 all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably= =20 don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or= =20 schemea.