On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 04:49:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > How is a catalog different from a schema?
>
> In the spec there's a hard-wired difference: catalogs contain schemas,
> schemas don't contain other schemas. The idea at hand here is to make
> our namespaces serve both purposes. (I knew there was a good reason
> not to use the word "schema" for namespaces ;-)) The spec behavior
> would be met by using exactly two levels of namespace, but there
> wouldn't be anything stopping people from using more, except that their
> queries wouldn't look like spec-compatible queries.
So is the *only* difference in which contains the other? It sounds like
they just use a different name to enforce that there's only 2 levels.
> Besides, I can't wait to hear the moans from the newsysviews crew when
> the implications of this sink in ;-) ;-)
Oh no, not recursive function calls! :P
Actually, for the performance we're trying to obtain on the more
important views (ie tables, indexes), it might become an issue. It would
probably force us to C functions which we've thus-far avoided.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"