Le Mercredi 14 Décembre 2005 18:14, Andreas Pflug a écrit :
> Dave Page wrote:
> >>I'm still not convinced we need to do anything. Renaming public is
> >>highly irregular, and finally showing system objects will make it
> >>reappear. The schema restriction allows individual filters
> >>who likes it.
> >
> > Renaming public is irregular, but if we can allow it without breaking
> > anything else, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do it.
>
> So for god's sake do implement it, but in general I'm less than inclined
> to implement workarounds for people doing weird things to the db. I'm
> waiting for the guy who claims that his "was-public" schema suddenly
> reapperars in pgadmin, while he just renamed it to have it hidden from
> the users.... There *are* admins that deliberately rename pg objects to
> hide them from pgadmin's sight.
>
I can understand some of your feelings but not this one. If an admin don't
want the public schema, they just have to drop it. Juste take a look at the
PostgreSQL manual :
« There is nothing special about the public schema except that it exists by
default. It can be dropped, too. »
« Also, there is no concept of a public schema in the SQL standard. For
maximum conformance to the standard, you should not use (perhaps even remove)
the public schema. »
From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/ddl-schemas.html
--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
http://traduc.postgresqlfr.org/ -->