> Shridhar Daithankar dijo:
>
> > On 4 Sep 2002 at 3:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > OK, the HISTORY file is updated, and 7.3 is branded and ready for beta1.
> >
> > Some minor stuff,
>
> In the schema changes description:
>
> "Schemas allow users to create objects in their own namespace
> so two people can have the same table with the same name."
> Shouldn't it read "so two people can have tables with the same name"
> ? My point is that the tables are not the same, they just have the
> same name.
How about this for a wording:
"Schemas allow users or applications to have their own namespaces inwhich to create objects.
A typical application of this is to allow creation of tables that_appear_ to have the same name. For instance, if some
GNOMEapplicationswere using PostgreSQL to store their configuration, a"GNUMERIC" namespace might have a table
PREFERENCESto storepreferences for that application, while a "POWERSHELL" namespacewould allow _that_ application to
storeconfiguration in aPREFERENCES table that is quite distinct from the "GNUMERIC" one.
The "true" table names may be GNUMERIC.PREFERENCES andPOWERSHELL.PREFERENCES, but by using Schemas, applications do
notneedto be speckled with gratuitious added prefixes of GNUMERIC orPOWERSHELL."
Note that I'm pointing at "applications" as the primary purpose for
this, as opposed to "users."
In the long run, are not applications more likely to be the driving
force encouraging the use of schemas?
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html
"The most precisely-explained and voluminously-documented user
interface "rule" can and will be shot to pieces with the introduction
of a single new priority consideration." -- Michael Peck