Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA5E475FFC; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ece.rice.edu (ece.rice.edu [128.42.4.34]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24860475FD4; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ece.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAE368A6A; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:19:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from wallace.ece.rice.edu (wallace.ece.rice.edu [128.42.12.154]) by ece.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B9768A6F; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:19:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from reedstrm by wallace.ece.rice.edu with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17mbwb-0006OM-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 10:19:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:19:49 -0500 From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" To: "Matthew T. OConnor" Cc: Joe Conway , Dave Page , Iavor Raytchev , pgsql-hackers , pgsql-interfaces Subject: Re: pgaccess - where to store the own data Message-ID: <20020904151949.GC24097@rice.edu> Mail-Followup-To: "Ross J. Reedstrom" , "Matthew T. OConnor" , Joe Conway , Dave Page , Iavor Raytchev , pgsql-hackers , pgsql-interfaces References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8677C@mail.vale-housing.co.uk> <1030730363.13569.5.camel@zeutnull> <3D6FB58C.4010501@joeconway.com> <200208301443.38126.matthew@zeut.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200208301443.38126.matthew@zeut.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020300 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/224 X-Sequence-Number: 28183 On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > > 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 > all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably > don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or > schemea. I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions, queries, and schema-documents. BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3, that'll get confusing. Ross